Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will There Ever Be A Super Sonic Steath Bombmer  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 years 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3911 times:

In the United States Air Force we have the B 52 subsonic bombmer, B 1 supersonic bombmer and B 2 subsonic steath. Now that we have the F 22 supersonic steath fighter do you think we will see a supersonic steath bombmer.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1597 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3837 times:

It depends on what you call a bomber.

In the short term the closest thing you will see it the FA-22. (There is no longer a "F-22" ). The "Double Duce" will fill the roll that was lost when the F-111 left service. There is talk of a FB-22 that has a 4 foot plug and a tail like the YF-23 had, but were would the money would come from?

Most likely if there is ever a true supersonic Bomber in service, it will most likely be some sort of UCAV and not a manned aircraft. There's no need for one with all the new Stand Off weapons on the market.




One small note, Even though the "Bone" can reach M1.2, it's only in a dash. The B-1's GE F101 engines are known to overheat easly. If I remember right, she is limited to M.92 in "Hard Ride" mode in peacetime conditions.

[Edited 2003-08-28 03:58:30]


My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3799 times:

I've read the FB-22 is a real possibility to extend the production line as the FA-22 winds down. Yes, money is a problem but we don't want to ignore the fact that our bomber fleet is getting older by the minute. The FB-22 in some numbers would make a good interim medium bomber like the FB-111A. A new heavy bomber program is still many years away, we'd better beef up the fleet as B-52 and B-1 attrition/retirements occur. I don't think the need can be ignored.

User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3783 times:

i think that more money should be invested in the upkeep of the current fleet. yes, development of new technologies must continue but not at the current rate where over $100 million is spent on one plane! is it that or is it more? last i heard it was over $100 million


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3753 times:

is it that or is it more? last i heard it was over $100 million

You heard the cheap figure. The F/A-22 Raptor I believe costs around this much. As opposed to a 16-20 million dollar F-16 (figure I heard from a DVD entitled, "Fighter Jets and Attack Aircraft").

A B-2 Spirit has a unit cost of around 1 Billion dollars...that's BILLION with a big "B".

B4e-Forever New Frontiers


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3758 times:

"A B-2 Spirit has a unit cost of around 1 Billion dollars...that's BILLION with a big "B"."

Isn't it two Bills? In any case, I know it's more than the aircraft's weight in gold.  Smile


Edit:

It's more than the cost of the amount of gold with a mass identical to that of a single B-2. Hope that's a little more clear.  Smile


LY744.

[Edited 2003-08-30 02:33:02]


Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3730 times:

The ONLY reason the unit cost of those aircraft is that high is because the development cost is spread across a ridiculously small number of aircraft.
Had the originally intended 100-200 B-2s been produced the unit cost would have been under $250 million each, which is lower (in real money) than the production cost of a B-52 at the time.

The same is true of the F-22. Had the intended order for 1000-1500 aircraft been built they'd have cost less than the F-15 when that was built.
But the order was reduced first to 600, then 400 and now even less I think, thus raising the writeoff of development cost per airframe to humongous numbers.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3722 times:

There is a real good chance one is flying out of Groom Lake as we speak.

There are spottings of an aircraft with about the same platfom when viewed from the bottom of the F-117 but at least 30 to 50% larger.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBromma1968 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3710 times:

I believe there will be a supersonic stealth bomber within fifteen years.
We will be surprised to see what will happen in the aviation and computer-
industry in the coming twenty years. I'm no fortune teller. I was supri-
ced to know about the stealth technology when I heard about the F-117
some years back. As you know the F-117 flew several years before it be-
came known to the world.

Anders Nilsson


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3721 times:

You'd be even more surprised then if you knew that the idea of low observable vehicles was first put to the test by the Germans (who else) during WW1 when they clad an aircraft in transparent plastic (rather than cloth and wood).
It wasn't a major success mainly because the stuff was too easily damaged and highly flamable, but it did work and was nearly invisible in the air.

During WW2 the US Navy began experimenting with designing ships in ways that would reduce radar reflections.
But it wasn't until the 1970s that computers became powerful enough to make it more than hit and miss experiments.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineWannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3695 times:

Physics question that I haven't seen answered yet. Can you really have a stealth supersonic bomber? Wouldn't the shock wave be detectable, regardless of altitude? A supersonic shock wave is a very un-natural event. Even if today's radar could not detect it, I am sure there must be a technology out there that can. So you would gain stealth advantage for a relatively short time until the technology to detect it would appear, and then you would be non-stealth. Given the development costs of such an aircraft, would the time you would have the advantage be worth the investment?

User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3649 times:

There are a couple of things here:

1. While the current trends are towards low-observable aircraft, there are anti-aircraft systems designed to counter this threat. Think about it: if we have an aircraft that they can't shoot down, what do we do if they have a similar aircraft? A system that is allegedly under development by the chinese looks for the 'holes' left in the background electromagnetic environment by an object passing through it. With this type of system, you don't need to see the aircraft, you only need to judge where it is going to be in a few seconds' time. If you can disguise the missile exhaust plume such that the aircraft's Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS) can't detect the missile, and you can use third-party targeting to direct the missile (so that it doesn't need an active seeker), the pilot won't even know s/he's been shot at...

2. Supersonic aircraft have two plus points - they can get to a target quickly, and they can outrun many missile systems. The negative points are numerous. Unless time is a factor, an unmanned aircraft that can out-evade a missile system is much simpler, cheaper and probably more effective than a supersonic variant.

3. The current publicly known research is towards reducing the sonic boom. In today's Defence Systems Daily, it was reported that the theory of reducing the shock wave has been proved on an F-15.

So, in general, I reckon that unless development is already underway on a black programme (which, by definition, would have a specific purpose), or an existing airframe is to be modified, then next supersonic bomber will come with the operator (not pilot) housed in a lorry-transportable container, or something even smaller...

PS... and it will be the battle of the software engineers... may our deity help us all...



The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

Of cost of the original YF-22 in 1997 was 65 millionand somehow in the past few years it rose to 200 million each. The same happened with the B-2. Its estimated 1989 cost was 750 million, and now its like 2.4 billion -- I blame Pentagon -- that's like half the cost of an aircraft carrier!


With regards to a supersonic stealth bomber...which do you want, stealth or supersonic? Cant have both, one defeats the purpose of the other. As a airplane passes sound it develops skin friction heat that shows up on IR radars, you aint stealthy no more. Heck the Lancer has been reduced to an 800kt cruise, that makes the B-1 a transsonic bomber.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3529 times:

Highly doubt that the next platform will be unmanned. This "unmanned" concept is not the end all to every single thing. Trends within the unmanned aerial vehicle market have the price of these aircraft skyrocketing. The more sensors etc you put into these birds the more they cost. UAV's have proven that they they are capable of flying above war zones with little or no enemy threat to them. The UAV is an important part of today's battlefield but it is not as high and mighty as the news media has made it out to be. Note that when Nato was engaged against the Serbs, UAV's were of little or not use due to the landscape and foliage.

Within the last 6 months, Aviation Week and Space Technology had an article on the future long range bombers. All of them were manned propostions. They all looked pretty interesting if I don't say so myself.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2866 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3517 times:

Quick correction: the sonic boom reducing technology demonstrator was an F-5. That was one UGLY sonofabitch. Looked like the offspring of an F-5 and a Grumman Mallard flying boat. I think http://www.aviationnow.com had an article on it not too long ago.

T.J.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3456 times:

Norththop's QSP modification of the F-5 is just one example of reducing the boom effect, they don't and likely wont have to look like that as long as the essence of the idea is put forth properly. IMHO, Northrop did not take the idea to the extreme, I think their idea can virturally elliminate the boom, just the way they would approach it would probably not be as cost effective since the first application is for military purposes...


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Will There Ever Be A Super Sonic Steath Bombmer
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...
Will Air Force 1 Ever Be Upgraded? posted Sun Aug 8 2004 19:25:04 by Wilax
Will There Be Another USS Ariz, Okla & Utah? posted Mon Mar 29 2004 05:06:09 by FlagshipAZ
How Long Will The ISS Be Used? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 20:07:28 by TheSonntag
Will We Ever Replace The Space Shuttle? posted Thu May 27 2004 08:31:52 by Lehpron
What Will The F-35s Be Called? posted Thu Apr 8 2004 12:05:23 by Greaser
What Will CVN-21(aka CVX) Be Named posted Sat Mar 11 2006 03:58:47 by DesertJets
Will "Air Force Ones" Be Replaced With 748i? posted Sat Mar 4 2006 05:52:07 by Ikramerica
When Will The PC-12s Be Delivered To U.S.A.F.? posted Thu Jan 26 2006 17:55:10 by CX747
When Will The Last F-4 Phantom II Be Retired? posted Tue Sep 20 2005 23:36:34 by TheSonntag
What Will Be The Next Heavy Transport Helicopter posted Thu Dec 23 2004 22:49:03 by Keesje

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format