Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Long-range Strike Bomber Gets More Funding  
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10005 times:

In a longer article Flightglobal looks into the Next generation Long range strike-bomber LRS-B.

In a short summary of the article the major news is that it gets increased funding next year (2013).

It might cost up to 60 billion dollars to develop.

Target price is 550 million USD.

Initially the USAF wants 80-100 LRS-B
Needs 155 to fill 10 squadrons.
Needs 200 to replace the entire fleet of B-52, B2 and B1.

The B-52 is unable to penetrate enemy air defences.
The B-1B is capable, but with only 60, cannot penetrate.
The B-1B is "de-nuclearised"

Only the B-2A fleet has the ability to operate inside enemy air defences
Only the B-2 will survive until 2040 so the Air Force cannot delay the new LRS-B airplane if the U.S wants to stay relevant in the next millennium.


Read everything here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-long-range-strike-bomber-377597/

Excellent written article. Dave Majumbar writes very well!


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2404 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10010 times:

I hope it will get as iconic as the B-52 or the B-2...   



David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9626 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 1):
I hope it will get as iconic as the B-52 or the B-2...

USAF will ask for a ton of gold, manufacturer will promise a mountain diamonds. They will burn money like crazy, not be able to meet requirements, deliver a (small) sack of rocks (based on current military procurement trends).


They need a bomber with as many off the shelf items as possible, get creative with the airframe... the rest should be in production on other aircraft. So much these days is software... slap the gear in, tweek the code, dont aim for the moon.


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1913 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 9603 times:

Quoting oykie (Thread starter):
if the U.S wants to stay relevant in the next millennium.

Jeez, if this is an effort to keep us relevant that long, I am worried that we are in big trouble!


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 9527 times:

I think that the USAF strategic bombing capability needs to be addressed with a two pronged strategy.

The first is the high tech, high speed, low observable aircraft. I'd envision this more as a stealthy B-1 than a straightforward B-2 successor. The reason being that for all the leaps forward in low observable aircraft, the radar people have been making progress too. The B-2 and F-117 before it are not especially maneuverable and generally fly at medium to high altitudes at subsonic speeds. If they are detected, they'd largely be sitting ducks. I think a low observable aircraft with low level penetrating ability like the B-1 is a better direction for the future. After all, speed and stealth in some respects come down to the same thing in the end, which is time. A plane that flies twice as fast but can be detected at twice the range should work just as well as a stealthier but slower counterpart.

The second aircraft (which should probably be developed first, given the available technology and age of the B-52 fleet) would be a subsonic, medium to high altitude heavy hauler designed with as many off-the-shelf components as possible. The emphasis here should be on payload and cost, both development/production and maintenance/operation.

Two airframes is really the only way I see the necessary capability being both available and affordable in the future. Attempting to fulfill the entire strategic bombing mission with a single airframe would likely result in a design that lacks either capability against technologically advanced opponents or the affordability to be acquired in enough quantity, and possible both.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 9516 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
a two pronged strategy

The first one is an edited F-22.
The second one is an edited 787.

Rest are UAVs

  


User currently offlinebigjku From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 9366 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
I think that the USAF strategic bombing capability needs to be addressed with a two pronged strategy.

I think that makes sense to some degree but I think low level penetration has, rightly, gone the way of the dodo. It brings too many defensive weapons back into play. I do like a two platformed approach though for the USAF. I think they need one platform that is a bomb, and more importantly a cruise missile, truck. They need another that can penetrate high value airspace and deliver a blow.

The problem is two airframes cost money. What I would personally prefer to see is one airframe that has the capability to have pylons hung on it to give it an external carriage capacity for JASSM's, JDAM's and SDB's. If you want to penetrate you leave the pylons off. If you want to bring a bunch of ordinance to the party you can put pylons on it and do so.

As far as specs I would suspect you will see something that operates in the high sub-sonic range and might have a sprint capability in the mach 1.2 to mach 1.5 range assuming they can find a way to use burners on it.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9359 times:

Quoting bigjku (Reply 6):
If you want to penetrate you leave the pylons off. If you want to bring a bunch of ordinance to the party you can put pylons on it and do so.

So... a higher capacity F-35?

Enlarge the airframe, give it 2 (or more) PW F119s, same guts as the F-35. Large internal storage, huge external storage.

The Russians have the right idea using the SU-27 as the basis for many different variants... you get proven capacity and cost savings.

[Edited 2012-10-17 06:18:10]

User currently offlinebigjku From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9333 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
So... a higher capacity F-35?

No, I think it has to be significantly bigger than that. You can't enlarge a fighter and call it a bomber. And strategic bombers are incredibly useful things to have as tools. They give you a long and heavy reach that an SU-27 just can't scale up to.

I would guess what you get will be very much, from an airframe perspective, a lot like the B-2, RQ-170 shape. It is really about the idea form for a bomber. The wing gives you great range and payload lift ability and is naturally stealthy to a good degree. Unless they decide to sell out for speed, and I don't think they will, you will see a flying wing in this role I would guess.


Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
The Russians have the right idea using the SU-27 as the basis for many different variants... you get proven capacity and cost savings.

I think this is a gross overstatement. The Russians have used the SU-27 as the basis for many things because they had no other options really. The MIG-29 just didn't have growth options really built into it and when things went to crap for them the best thing they had to work from was the SU-27. But it can no more replace a B-1 or B-52 than an F-15E can. They are not in the same ballpark really.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 9282 times:

A recent article I read about stealth, how just in the last ten years it has become less of an advantage than what it used to be. New ways of using existing detection equipment, combined with new technologies in detection equipment, make for less and less of an overall advantage. As of yet, I've yet to hear where this new long range bomber will do anything much different than the existing B-2; why R&D something to reinvent the wheel? Does this new platform need to fly higher, farther, and or carry more payload? Bang to buck ratio, here.

User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week ago) and read 9211 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 3):
Jeez, if this is an effort to keep us relevant that long, I am worried that we are in big trouble!

Peace through strength might not be such a bad idea. And if the U.S does not want to be the strong one, someone else will fill this space. And I rather want the U.S. to be the dominant player, than some other, non democratic nation. I for one have gotten used to the freedom of living in a peaceful democracy where I can express my opinion and believe in whatever I want to believe in. Courtesy of NATO and the U.S being 70% of that force. I know that a lot of soldiers have died, so I can live in peace. Remember those 11 aircraft carriers around the world and the F-22 flying nearby Iran and North-Korea sends a powerful message: Don't even think about it.

quote=BMI727,reply=4]I think that the USAF strategic bombing capability needs to be addressed with a two pronged strategy. [/quote]

If they can afford it. But what is the better option? The number of planes, or their speed? The B-52 is still feared in many corners of the world.

Quoting bigjku (Reply 6):
As far as specs I would suspect you will see something that operates in the high sub-sonic range and might have a sprint capability in the mach 1.2 to mach 1.5 range assuming they can find a way to use burners on it.

That would put its speed in the same corner as the B-1 Lancer. How many times have they been used in supersonic missions?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
The reason being that for all the leaps forward in low observable aircraft, the radar people have been making progress too.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
A recent article I read about stealth, how just in the last ten years it has become less of an advantage than what it used to be. New ways of using existing detection equipment, combined with new technologies in detection equipment, make for less and less of an overall advantage.

This is something I have thought about. The stealth capabilities are adopting, but so is tracking devices. The cost is incredibly high. And is it worth reducing the inventory to get Stealth? I am fascinated by the active camouflage that Boeing used on the Bird of prey, but that technology does still not make it completely invisible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Bird_of_Prey



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9157 times:

Quoting bigjku (Reply 6):
I think that makes sense to some degree but I think low level penetration has, rightly, gone the way of the dodo.

My belief is that it's going to have to make a return to some degree as radars become more capable of detecting low observable targets. In the future stealth will be important, but I doubt that you can have just stealth and get away with it.

Quoting oykie (Reply 10):
But what is the better option? The number of planes, or their speed?

They'll need both. There needs to be a low observable, highly capable bomber but there is no way that such an aircraft would be cheap enough that it could be bought in enough quantity to make up the entire force. The cheaper bomber would never be able to offer the capability the USAF will need. Attempting to cover the entire mission with a single airframe would likely result in something that is neither cheap nor able to penetrate against a well equipped enemy.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinebigjku From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9148 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
A recent article I read about stealth, how just in the last ten years it has become less of an advantage than what it used to be. New ways of using existing detection equipment, combined with new technologies in detection equipment, make for less and less of an overall advantage. As of yet, I've yet to hear where this new long range bomber will do anything much different than the existing B-2; why R&D something to reinvent the wheel? Does this new platform need to fly higher, farther, and or carry more payload? Bang to buck ratio, here.

My guess is that the platform would be very similar to the B-2 but would probably get new F-35 like skin and be built much more around the conventional ordinance missions rather than the nuclear mission that the B-2 was originally built for. The F-35 skin is a game changer for stealth. It makes it much more maintainable.


User currently offlinebigjku From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9131 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
My belief is that it's going to have to make a return to some degree as radars become more capable of detecting low observable targets. In the future stealth will be important, but I doubt that you can have just stealth and get away with it.

I tend to think rather than going low the answer is going to be more active electronic countermeasures for penetrating aircraft. Early stealth planes did not really have this but the F-35 will and I think future bombers will have a robust electronic warfare capability.


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9078 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The B-1B is not going anywhere/away soon. We are getting a glass cockpit upgrade and MANY other internal and structural upgrades in the near future to keep it "in-play" for many more years.

Last year, Lybia proved we still need it (when we can get it off the ground). High-speed, low-level, and a powerful arsenal/payload was the key to that success; as is it has been well more utilized in the everyday "mission" over in that theater.

Quoting bigjku (Reply 6):
The problem is two airframes cost money. What I would personally prefer to see is one airframe that has the capability to have pylons hung on it to give it an external carriage capacity for JASSM's, JDAM's and SDB's. If you want to penetrate you leave the pylons off. If you want to bring a bunch of ordinance to the party you can put pylons on it and do so.

Respectively...should they go with the "one-size-fits-all" then we are back to the ungodly delays and cost overruns of the F-35 that is being heavily scrutinized now.

Regards,
135 Mech


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9069 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting oykie (Reply 10):
That would put its speed in the same corner as the B-1 Lancer. How many times have they been used in supersonic missions?

With Afghanistan, that "need" has and is being used quite regularly in the last several years. Also see my above post about Lybia.

Quoting oykie (Reply 10):
Peace through strength might not be such a bad idea. And if the U.S does not want to be the strong one, someone else will fill this space. And I rather want the U.S. to be the dominant player, than some other, non democratic nation. I for one have gotten used to the freedom of living in a peaceful democracy where I can express my opinion and believe in whatever I want to believe in. Courtesy of NATO and the U.S being 70% of that force. I know that a lot of soldiers have died, so I can live in peace. Remember those 11 aircraft carriers around the world and the F-22 flying nearby Iran and North-Korea sends a powerful message: Don't even think about it.

WOW... that was incredibly well said. I have been deployed (Air Force) many, many times...but very fortunate to have stayed relatively safe (most of the time) and greatly appreciative of our freedoms because of it!

Thank you for what you wrote, very uplifting!

Regards,
135Mech
(USAF 23 yrs)


User currently offlinebigjku From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9042 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 14):
Respectively...should they go with the "one-size-fits-all" then we are back to the ungodly delays and cost overruns of the F-35 that is being heavily scrutinized now.

I would not even say a one size fits all. My view is that you won't get funding for two bombers. That means the one you build is likely to be the high end one. I generally like the idea of having the option to go max speed and stealth by carrying everything inside or to load up with ordinance on pylons if I need to.

I think were the F-35 went "wrong" (not really wrong but gets expensive I should say) is trying to work the B into everything else. I don't think you would have that with a bomber. Basically what I am describing is a B-2 with some under wing access panels that would let you mount a pylon to the thing and carry some more ordinance externally when and if you needed to. When you need to go clean you just leave the pylons off.

The only other realistic option I can see is basically converting something else (new cargo plane, P-8 ect) to carry more cruise missiles on its wings for those type of missions. I just don't think you have any chance of getting funding for both a B-2 replacement and a B-52 type replacement. You are either going to have to combine the platform as I described or you are going to just get a B-2 replacement and figure out something else to lug a bunch of JASSM's into combat when you need to.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9010 times:

Quoting bigjku (Reply 13):
I tend to think rather than going low the answer is going to be more active electronic countermeasures for penetrating aircraft. Early stealth planes did not really have this but the F-35 will and I think future bombers will have a robust electronic warfare capability.

Future bombers should have a full suite of electronic goodies, but as with many things, people figure out a way to beat them. Flying low and fast will always help you. I think that in order to have the necessary striking ability, the USAF will have to combine the electronic warfare suites with low observables and high performance.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 14):
Respectively...should they go with the "one-size-fits-all" then we are back to the ungodly delays and cost overruns of the F-35 that is being heavily scrutinized now.

No they shouldn't. Any result of a single program will likely be either long on cost or short on capability. Possibly both.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8984 times:

We are entering the new age of commercial space programs where small launches cost may be in the millions only. It would be much easier to hit strategic targets from space, even just with kinetic weapons, so why even bother with new long range bombers. They are expensive to develop, to maintain, to man, to operate, to protect .......

Once asymmetry is achieved, all we need is something that flies a long way to the enemgy and drop smart bombs. Modified commercial assets may just do the trick at a much lower cost. Just build a small penetrating force based on our state of the art fighter technolgies may be good enough for smaller scale deterance as well as rapid reactions.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4830 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8939 times:

I see them going for a high end bomber B-1B size. Nuclear capable and capable of carrying a wide range of weapons. It would be super-sonic capable (perhaps even super-cruise). It would have a range of LO tech incorporated and since this has moved on in the past 20+ years I'd say it would be as good as the B-2 if not better in this area. Cost-wise you'd be wanting to bring it down (given the advances made and lessons learned from the F-22 and F-35 programs and the fact that it wouldn't need to be as high-tech as those fighters) and have it come in at $250-300m a pop with 150 produced.

No need for a smaller option as these can be done using cruise missiles, UAVs, and fighters like the F-35.
Missile tech is improving... it won't be long before they have cruise missiles which are hypersonic able to hit anywhere in the world from existing US territories reducing the risk to assets and personale and costing a whole lot less.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8925 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 18):

We are entering the new age of commercial space programs where small launches cost may be in the millions only. It would be much easier to hit strategic targets from space, even just with kinetic weapons, so why even bother with new long range bombers. They are expensive to develop, to maintain, to man, to operate, to protect ......

There are issues with satellites too. They aren't the most responsive weapons out there: you may not have a satellite in an orbit where it can hit a target and have to launch one. And, according to Wikipedia so take this with a grain of salt, a kinetic space weapon wouldn't be much lighter than TNT, that is the power of a projectile dropped from space would have about the same power as a similar mass of explosives.

Overall, the concept merits development, but isn't going to be useful in the relatively near term.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 19):
No need for a smaller option as these can be done using cruise missiles, UAVs, and fighters like the F-35.

UAVs aren't quite there yet. Either way, I think that aircraft systems of that generation will be set up with UAVs in mind: with the ability to interface with and maybe control them at the low end and system architecture with the potential for unmanned variants at the high end of the continuum. (I want to say Boeing had a future fighter concept that included that)

The F-35, and for that matter the various F-22 and F-23 concepts that have popped up over the years, will lack the range and payload to fulfill the strategic bombing role, even with the advent of smaller and smarter weapons. Such aircraft could do nicely as replacements for the F-15E and the like, but won't do so well in place of B-1s or B-2s.

Cruise missiles pose the exact same problems they've posed since they were invented, namely the inability to loiter in an area.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 19):
Missile tech is improving... it won't be long before they have cruise missiles which are hypersonic able to hit anywhere in the world from existing US territories reducing the risk to assets and personale and costing a whole lot less.

It depends on your definition of "not long" but the struggles of the X-51 would seem to indicate that hypersonic weapons are still some distance off. Far enough to not be an alternative to a new strategic bomber anyway.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3553 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What we need is a slow high altitude sow.. with the advances in engines and wings, coupled with a slightly larger B-52 body then run that down our current manufacturing advances and you've got a fearsome workhorse for another 60 years and a reasonable expense.

User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8813 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):
Attempting to cover the entire mission with a single airframe would likely result in something that is neither cheap nor able to penetrate against a well equipped enemy.

In other words keep the B1 and B2 for now. Focus on the B-52 replacement.

Quoting bigjku (Reply 12):
The F-35 skin is a game changer for stealth.

It would be cool to see that skin on the LRS-B!

Quoting 135mech (Reply 15):
With Afghanistan, that "need" has and is being used quite regularly in the last several years. Also see my above post about Lybia.

Do they use the B-1 as a fly low and fast approach, and leave the high altidude flying to the B-2 and B-52?

Quoting 135mech (Reply 15):

WOW... that was incredibly well said. I have been deployed (Air Force) many, many times...but very fortunate to have stayed relatively safe (most of the time) and greatly appreciative of our freedoms because of it!

Thank you for what you wrote, very uplifting!
Quoting 135mech (Reply 15):
Regards,
135Mech
(USAF 23 yrs)

I am very greatful for the work you are doing! My grandfather was working for the during WW2 and his ship was torpedoed by an Italian sub near the Aden bay. He taught me never to take for granted the freedom my generation might take for granted. He always appreciated the effort by the U.S during WW2.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 20):
It depends on your definition of "not long" but the struggles of the X-51 would seem to indicate that hypersonic weapons are still some distance off. Far enough to not be an alternative to a new strategic bomber anyway.

The X-51 has had its problems, but the potential in that technology is amazing. If they succeed that weapon will also be sort of peace through strength. I agree that it is at experimental stage for now, and in the meantime the USAF will need a new bomber.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days ago) and read 8663 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bigjku (Reply 16):
I would not even say a one size fits all. My view is that you won't get funding for two bombers. That means the one you build is likely to be the high end one. I generally like the idea of having the option to go max speed and stealth by carrying everything inside or to load up with ordinance on pylons if I need to

Cool, very interesting! The F-22 has those "if needed" mounts that they use for long range fuel tanks when crossing the pond, could be a great concept for a new bomber. Very much the thought of "added" pylons when needed like the B-52, is a smart concept!

It's funny, because one of the thoughts of the B-1B was as a B-52 replacement at the time...but the old bird soldiers on! LOL

Thanks!

135Mech


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8651 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 18):
Once asymmetry is achieved, all we need is something that flies a long way to the enemgy and drop smart bombs. Modified commercial assets may just do the trick at a much lower cost. Just build a small penetrating force based on our state of the art fighter technolgies may be good enough for smaller scale deterance as well as rapid reactions.

While that is a good concept... there comes to mind KAL-007. Once you start using "commercial airliners" as weapons; then the opposing (or annoyed) forces start getting paranoid and shoot down 400 passengers and never apologize! That's a tricky option.

Regards,
135Mech


25 Post contains images 135mech : It is being used for high and low...fast and slow... it loiters well, and then races in to hit very well. It has truly become the "multi-role" bomber
26 BMI727 : In the short term, that's what should happen. The slow, cheap B-52 replacement should be the first design up followed by the fast, stealthy B-1 and B
27 bikerthai : We already crossed that bridge. The P-8A (737 derivative) can carry bombs and missiles and from 5 miles out, it looks just like any other 737. bt
28 Post contains images bikerthai : Yes, but the trick is to have a weapon delivery system that can handle the shifting CG's as you drop you ordinance. With a dedicated bomber, you can
29 Post contains images neutrino : Pardon me but I believe its ordnance that you mean to say.
30 135mech : Yes, I was thinking that as i wrote it. I was just thinking that producing airliner to military variants on a greater scale would most likely turn ou
31 Post contains images cosmofly : At least one can focus on this Didn't Boeing mention that they have to deliberately increase the 787 RCS so that it can be an airliner?
32 rwessel : And the P-3 is an Electra. Although the MAD boom is fairly distinguishing, and if you look really closely, the front sections is shortened a bit. And
33 bigjku : Yeah, and I would guess that the B-2's payload is limited by what you can stuff into the internal bay rather than by what the thing is capable of lif
34 BMI727 : An airliner type airframe will not lend itself nearly as well to a bomber as it will to a patrol aircraft. First is the issue of space: a bomber and
35 FSXJunkie : The B-52H is since it has always been optimized for standoff missions, The B-52G was the go to bird for penetration, they got gutted by START and the
36 EagleBoy : I think this idea is spot on. Looking at the uses of the B-52 over the last 10 years, lots of business coming its way as a heavy hauler, able to carr
37 FSXJunkie : Problem is that at supersonic speeds stealth is useless, the best you can do with stealth is to mute an egregious return, the B-70 Valkyrie was to ha
38 BMI727 : The F-22 manages to do alright. Granted, smaller planes are always easier to hide, but modern technology can give a low observable plane with the abi
39 rwessel : Radar returns are an inverse fourth-power effect. To double the effective range of a given radar, you'd need to increase the radar return of an aircr
40 BigJKU : On this I fully agree. The main benefit of these bombers is their ability to base out of home bases close to large supplies of bombs and munitions an
41 bikerthai : Diagrams I've seen shows 4 wing hard points (2 on each wing). So the other 2 SLAM-ER may be center line fuselage mount. Don't know if the SLAM-ER wil
42 Post contains images bikerthai : Now, here's a thought. What if you take the P-8. Take out the electronics, put in a main deck cargo door and strengthen the floor? You'll get a 737 ca
43 Post contains images Stitch : SAC did a study about using the 747-200 airframe as a cruise missile warehouse...
44 SSTeve : Is there any chance that in the quest to take things off the shelf that they'll choose a militarized engine and try to build a bomber around it? Like
45 BMI727 : If you need an asset to flex some muscle and prove that we mean business, strategic bombers are not the best choice. Carrier battle groups are far mo
46 ThePointblank : The lower you are the closer you have to get to launch a weapon and you can be seen/heard by people on the ground. The higher you are the harder you
47 BigJKU : Honestly I see the two systems as complimentary. And I am not talking about flexing muscle. I am talking about their utility in an honest to god shoo
48 BMI727 : But how much is that going to cost? Furthermore, an aircraft able to operate at low altitudes could also operate at medium altitudes without too much
49 bikerthai : Yes if you want to maximize your bomb load. For a loiter and attack mission, it is unlikely that you'll need to carpet bomb. The hardpoint on the P-8
50 KC135TopBoom : There are several different approaches here, depending on what the defined mission will be. If it is a cruise missile or C-UAV platform, then a stand
51 wvsuperhornet : So... a higher capacity F-35? Enlarge the airframe, give it 2 (or more) PW F119s, same guts as the F-35. Large internal storage, huge external storage
52 Post contains images Stitch : Forget the F-22 and F-35 - scale up the Y-23! Popular Mechanics once postulated back in the early 2000's that the USAF had recycled the YF-23 design t
53 Oroka : lol it would be about as much a F-35 as the Super Hornet is a F/A-18D, probably less. I think the concept that new aircraft have to be new designs. L
54 Post contains images oykie : Do you have any picture for that recycld YF-23? IMO being used to see the F-22, the UF-23 looks weired. Cool from behind, but the UFO shape is unusua
55 bikerthai : If you are going to design a long range bomber with pilots, you better ask the pilot how it feels to sit in a chair for 20+ hours. Even if those guys
56 BigJKU : I tend to agree. You need something bigger for the Pacific theater in particular. An evolved F-111 of F-15 Strike Eagle won't really cut it for many
57 Post contains images mffoda : No disrespect bikerthai... perhaps we should shit-can the Prima donna pilots who think 24-48 sitting in seat is hard duty? As compared to the alterna
58 BigJKU : A bit flippant I think. It is more about mission effectiveness for people flying what is likely to be an asset worth $750 million plus a piece in an
59 Post contains images bikerthai : No offense taken . . . we can always replace the Prima donna pilots with Prima donna joystick driver and have the little boys room down the hall. But
60 135mech : HAHAHAHA!!! Our old KC-135's finally are getting a commercial rated comode (for the active duty planes) but, they are not rushing to do that either!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf Long-range Strike Bomber Gets More Funding
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Ultra-long Range Bomber Flights? posted Mon Dec 13 2004 19:33:40 by Mozart
Long Range Visual ID System On F-14 posted Wed Apr 23 2008 11:02:29 by CaptOveur
Why Are There No European Long Range Bombers? posted Fri Nov 2 2007 19:39:13 by Wvsuperhornet
Rest Facilities/toilets On Long Range Bombers posted Thu Sep 13 2007 20:30:37 by DIJKKIJK
Do Long Range Heavy Bombers Have An Fighter Excort posted Tue Dec 20 2005 18:23:02 by 747400sp
Awacs With Long-range AAMs posted Thu Sep 2 2004 16:14:28 by N328KF
Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber? posted Mon Apr 9 2012 08:58:23 by Revelation
Usaf Gets New 30,000lbs Bunker Busting Bomb posted Wed Nov 16 2011 19:50:48 by LAXintl
Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions posted Sun Jan 10 2010 09:30:26 by Venus6971
Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s posted Sat Feb 7 2009 04:58:57 by Lumberton
Awacs With Long-range AAMs posted Thu Sep 2 2004 16:14:28 by N328KF
Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber? posted Mon Apr 9 2012 08:58:23 by Revelation
Usaf Gets New 30,000lbs Bunker Busting Bomb posted Wed Nov 16 2011 19:50:48 by LAXintl
Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions posted Sun Jan 10 2010 09:30:26 by Venus6971

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format