747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3720 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.
Sinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1563 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3646 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.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3608 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.
Cancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 12 Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3592 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."
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3539 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.
Bromma1968 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3519 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.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3530 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.
Wannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 675 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3504 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?
Bsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3458 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...
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3369 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.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4436 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3338 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
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2812 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 3326 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.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3265 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.