Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Air Force gives hints about new bomber

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
At a speech at the annual Air Warfare Symposium in Florida, Lt. Gen. Bruton Field dropped a few hints about the new LRS-b platform under development. The speech was given defending the need for the bomber (which is slightly puzzling given all the good support messages we've heard about the funding for it).

The bomber will be fielded in a manned configuration at first, in the mid-2020s. An unmanned configuration is possible later. It will be made with mostly existing technologies, with an eye towards penetration, stand off, and direct attack weapons. It also will reportedly have room for a "significant" payload. The plan is to field between 80-100 of the aircraft, depending on what the final price tag is. The AF wants to keep the price at or below $550M per aircraft.


ORLANDO, FLA. — The Air Force needs its new long-range strike bomber, even if it can’t give details.

That was the message of a panel held Thursday at the annual Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla.

The panel featured a full-throated defense of the long-range strike bomber as a key asset for the future of the Air Force. It was a slightly puzzling attitude, given that the bomber has been identified as one of the big three key modernization programs for the service and has secured what Lt. Gen. Burton Field, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, called “great support” from Pentagon and congressional leadership.

“Bombers can send messages. They can influence or initiate action, and they are credible because of what they have done in the past,” Field said, specifically citing events last year when a B-2 bomber flew near North Korea and a B-52 was flown through China’s new air defense zone. “Bombers can send messages fast, and they send messages with credibility.”

www.defensenews.com...




posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


This might be a silly question, but why not just crank out some modernized B-2s? The B-52 was effective for 50 years; the B-2 has been operational for about 25 years. Surely the cost of producing B-2's has gone down significantly in the last two decades and the airframe has proven itself has it not?
edit on 21-2-2014 by Orwells Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Orwells Ghost
 


Good god no. If they restarted the line from a cold start, each bomber would at least double in price, and if you modernize them, it would go more than that in price.

The Spirit of Kansas, in 2008, would have cost $1.2T to replace. A fleet of them would eventually go down, but they wouldn't go down to the level of the LRS-b.
edit on 2/21/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I would love to see a rendering of this aircraft. I wonder what the shape of it looks like, more of a conventional aircraft, or stealth looking.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Glassbender777
 


It's pretty nice. There are a couple designs out there, being as there are a couple of competitors involved.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Is this a b52 replacement? Those things are flying dump trucks. Tough and reliable. I wonder if we need a large bomber anymore. With so much precision bombing done today the saturation bombing has gone into limbo. When b52s are used the anti air threat is gone. So do we need stealth tech and price tags for that mission. Should be fun to watch though.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


www.flightglobal.com...

Here's a story bout it.



They just need to release all the alien inspired secret craft already. ;P



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71
 


It's going to replace some B-52s, and some B-1s. It's not a straight up replacement for any one platform though.

Even if it just uses precision munitions, the difference between a large strategic bomber and tactical bombers is well worth it. The F-15E, which is the main tactical bomber in the US inventory, can carry 23,000 pounds of fuel tanks and weapons. A single B-2 can carry 50,000 pounds of weapons. That means one B-2 can perform the same mission as just over 2 F-15Es. The E is more flexible in the Close Air Support mission, but in the initial fighting, the B-2 is the better asset for the mission.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Zaphod58

The Spirit of Kansas, in 2008, would have cost $1.2T to replace.






What is on that beast!

It made of platnium and powered by anti matter or something !

you could build a carrier group with that!



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


That covers inflation, and the cost of replacing the tooling, and specialized machinery required to work the RAM coatings. Not to mention that it would be a one off replacement. But either way, it would probably be on the order of $7-800M a copy if they restart the line and don't build a huge fleet of them.
edit on 2/21/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Something is interesting at the end of the text " “It will be through this bomber program that we have our best chance right now of bringing in the exotic new technologies of the future into new development,” Grant said, citing developments such as directed energy weaponry, hypersonics and alternative fuels as options that could be looked at." All of the options are open in this plane surely a futur best seller the LRS-B.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Only 550 million apiece? Great! That means we can expect them to cost about 3 billion apiece then, according to the usual huge underestimations of military project costs! Well, not really underestimated, just under reporting of true estimates. Or true padding for extra profits, that is. My dad was a GS 17 for the GAO and I grew up hearing about alllll the costs of our projects and how they are so close to NEVER being even close to accurate, that any time ANY project comes close to an actual estimate, it's HUGE news! We've been held captive by that often mentioned Military/Industrial complex, hand in hand robbing of the American taxpayer for generations. F35, F22, B2, Seawolf..... its business as usual.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:41 AM
link   

jaxnmarko
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Only 550 million apiece? Great! That means we can expect them to cost about 3 billion apiece then, according to the usual huge underestimations of military project costs! Well, not really underestimated, just under reporting of true estimates. Or true padding for extra profits, that is. My dad was a GS 17 for the GAO and I grew up hearing about alllll the costs of our projects and how they are so close to NEVER being even close to accurate, that any time ANY project comes close to an actual estimate, it's HUGE news! We've been held captive by that often mentioned Military/Industrial complex, hand in hand robbing of the American taxpayer for generations. F35, F22, B2, Seawolf..... its business as usual.


exactly!!!

More weapons to kill other human beings...without batting an eye lash and USA is the major proponent of that. Ahh yes.. the glories of Rome....




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Yes but a lot of employement in high tech with war plane
And I prefer USA stay the first Air Force in the world instead of Chinese or Russia, USAF need this program to stay ahead in the futur.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 02:15 AM
link   

darksidius
reply to post by Komodo
 


Yes but a lot of employement in high tech with war plane
And I prefer USA stay the first Air Force in the world instead of Chinese or Russia, USAF need this program to stay ahead in the futur.


yea..

gonna pass on that job..even if it ment to stand on the corner and beg .. I would .. I think we have WAY MORE than enough firepower & Technology to decimate a small country ...........lest my conscience will be clean knowing I didn't assist any corp building any WMDs

I stop drinking the coolaid.. LONG time ago ..




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   

jaxnmarko

Only 550 million apiece? Great! That means we can expect them to cost about 3 billion apiece then, according to the usual huge underestimations of military project costs!


$ 550 million x a fleet of 100 = $ 55,000,000,000

Meat and potatoes for the military industrial complex. The US needs these projects, like most modern governments do, to keep the industrial and technological momentum and to manage unemployment in certain sectors. Technology has always been #1 to the US to maintain military superiority at all times.

It's not just the base cost we're talking about but the years, probably decades, of ongoing costs to maintain a fleet of 100 exotic bombers. Richard Nixon would love it. So would Howard Hughes, imho.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Did you see in the OP article that dude actually used the word 'exotic' so I'm not making that up.


“It will be through this bomber program that we have our best chance right now of bringing in the exotic new technologies of the future into new development,” Grant said, citing developments such as directed energy weaponry, hypersonics and alternative fuels as options that could be looked at.


Someone in the Congress will ask why they would first build manned bombers and later convert them to unmanned bombers when they could undoubtedly build them all unmanned for a cheaper cost?

The Pentagon will say hand over the money and *poof* you have a new fleet of the most highly advanced drone weapons by 2020.

edit on 2/22/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Just don't know, but manned bombers, really? how passe ! here's something that sounds really cool and makes the UTMOST sense, try saying this "B-37B" Space Bomber" Sounds almost like the "X-37B" Space Technology Demonstrator. Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge! now that's how you build a bomber that keeps on giving. orbit after orbit after orbit. What's that you say? weaponizing space is against some stinking treaty? google F.O.B.S. anyway, if you gonna build an air breather, make it a drone right from the start. the idea of a "new" manned air breathing platform is just a non-starter. but lawn chairs lofted by met balloons filled with helium with a guy in a nice warm parka and carrying a bucket of bricks would also be acceptable. the B-37B would be cooler though !



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter

jaxnmarko

Only 550 million apiece? Great! That means we can expect them to cost about 3 billion apiece then, according to the usual huge underestimations of military project costs!


$ 550 million x a fleet of 100 = $ 55,000,000,000

Meat and potatoes for the military industrial complex. The US needs these projects, like most modern governments do, to keep the industrial and technological momentum and to manage unemployment in certain sectors. Technology has always been #1 to the US to maintain military superiority at all times.

It's not just the base cost we're talking about but the years, probably decades, of ongoing costs to maintain a fleet of 100 exotic bombers. Richard Nixon would love it. So would Howard Hughes, imho.
they will probably be used to ferry the no 2 product for the bankers up from south america coke



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jaxnmarko
 


Pentagon contract awarding has changed drastically in the last few years. The Air Force has announced that going forward contracts will be fixed price, with completion bonuses. That means that if the building company goes $150M over they pay for it, not the government. There is even talk that the CVN-80 (USS John F. Kennedy) will be a fixed price contract.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join