Skip to comments.
New Bomber Program 'Underway' But Cloaked in Secrecy
AolDefense ^
| 2/24/2012
| Colin Clark
Posted on 02/24/2012 9:09:08 PM PST by U-238
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
To: chemicalman
I like his books.I will have to read that one. Thanks for the tip
:)
41
posted on
02/24/2012 11:14:56 PM PST
by
U-238
To: Nowhere Man
The B-52 was designed for a different era. Now its time to mmove over and let an advanced bomber take its place.
42
posted on
02/24/2012 11:21:00 PM PST
by
U-238
To: Norm Lenhart
43
posted on
02/24/2012 11:36:54 PM PST
by
U-238
To: U-238
One really has to wonder. It’s such a simple and effective idea, why wouldn’t we have done it? Sure can’t be that hard to keep hidden. Rocket launches happen all the time. No spectacular tech to leak out. No real hyper-complex system to maintain outside fuel for the sat - and we repair/refuel them regularly. Just a targeting system computer and a bunch of heavy metal.
I’d be more apt to think it’s been up there since the 60s and that all the rest has been no more than a dog and pony show to hide the fact that we can hit anything, anywhere at damn near any reasonable depth.
...And that if we used it on Iran, then the cat’s outta the bag. But if we have it and don’t....
Interesting thing to ponder.
44
posted on
02/25/2012 12:03:03 AM PST
by
Norm Lenhart
(Normie: Wandering Druid, Cult of Palin)
To: U-238
Attack satellites with or without lasers. But then you’ve got the satellite-killer satellites or other threats to satellites. Oh hell, why not just surrender. LOL
To: Norm Lenhart
Perhaps the XB-37 (mini space plane) is laying the groundwork. Also, there was another thread here about an alleged ‘airstrike’ on an Iranian facility (Isfahan?) a few months back.
To: U-238
Anticipated a “smart” meaning an intelliegent reply which may expalain the discontinaunce.. But did a wise and friendly country buy off a few for their evaluation ? WILL will soon find out . I hope that wss the case ...Because they know now to use our discards....Fact is if I ever won the lottery I I could get one but the bay would be filled with blondss, redheads and brunnets........
I thimk they IDAF have a couple and ....pooof at LEAST HOPE SO ....
47
posted on
02/25/2012 12:43:32 AM PST
by
mosesdapoet
("The best way to punish a country is let professors run it. Fredrick the Great p/p)
To: FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
I’d thought of that at the time but wondered if there was anything ‘under’ that place. In 100 years or so we ‘might’ learn the truth of what really happened there, but considering the ineptitude of the average Iranian fanatic, I be just as apt to think some idiot was smoking around a liquid Oxygen transfer operation.
Everything I’ve read on the RFG stuff says it’s like a small tactical nuke when it hits and that wasn’t that big a bang...or so we were told....
Dunno, but I still hope we really do have it.
48
posted on
02/25/2012 1:04:05 AM PST
by
Norm Lenhart
(Normie: Wandering Druid, Cult of Palin)
To: U-238
“I like his books.I will have to read that one. “
Check out Dan Simmons. “Flashback.”
To: Mariner
Already nobody can stop a B-1B. I hope you mean the B-2. The B-1B is not much more survivable than a B-52.
50
posted on
02/25/2012 1:42:28 AM PST
by
Doe Eyes
To: Norm Lenhart
And they would make dandy targets for the Chinese anti-sat missiles ...
51
posted on
02/25/2012 3:05:58 AM PST
by
PIF
(They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
To: DBrow
Already nobody can stop a B-1B.
Wow, I looked it up, and apparently we fly 100 of these? I dont hear much about them. Saw one at an airshow.
Amazingly the B1 bomber actually made it into the inventory, that phuckwit Jimmy Carter canceled the program, but to his everlasting credit, President Ronald Reagan wisely ordered the B-1 program revived, and rightly so.
52
posted on
02/25/2012 3:12:33 AM PST
by
mkjessup
(Romney is to conservatism what e.coli is to an all-you-can-eat salad bar. NO ROMNEY!!!)
To: Norm Lenhart
Re: 'Rods from Gods'
The tech is 1950s to make it reality. Modern comps could target it to insane precision. The only cost is the payload getting a few dozen Tungsten phone poles into orbit.
Must be no profit in it for Defense Contractors.
But it sure would solve the Iran problem in 10 seconds with no fallout.
Hell it would solve our problems in Washington! LOL
53
posted on
02/25/2012 3:16:31 AM PST
by
mkjessup
(Romney is to conservatism what e.coli is to an all-you-can-eat salad bar. NO ROMNEY!!!)
To: PIF
True. But our GPS sats are a far more important military target. An RFG sat they can track and kill at will saving them a few hits on their facilities. Drop out GPS net and we’re toast. Why waste a good tactical advantage by taking out an RFG that is minimal threat unless its parked over Hong Kong?
54
posted on
02/25/2012 3:21:05 AM PST
by
Norm Lenhart
(Normie: Wandering Druid, Cult of Palin)
To: Doe Eyes; Mariner
Already nobody can stop a B-1B.
I hope you mean the B-2. The B-1B is not much more survivable than a B-52
Apparently you don't know much about the B-1B. VAST differences between that plane and B-52:
Speed alone is notable, maximum for the B-52? 650 mph, the B-1B? Try out Mach 1.25 (830+ mph).
55
posted on
02/25/2012 3:23:50 AM PST
by
mkjessup
(Romney is to conservatism what e.coli is to an all-you-can-eat salad bar. NO ROMNEY!!!)
To: U-238
The B-52 was designed for a different era. Now its time to move over and let an advanced bomber take its place.
Those BUFFs have served America well, no question. Although their usefulness could be extended yet again with a latter day equivalent of the GAM-87 (Skybolt). Canceled by another no-good sonuvabitch named Robert McNamara.
56
posted on
02/25/2012 3:30:33 AM PST
by
mkjessup
(Romney is to conservatism what e.coli is to an all-you-can-eat salad bar. NO ROMNEY!!!)
To: U-238
To: ClearCase_guy
I think 9 is optimisitic. Maybe the AF will get to keep the two prototypes. Given its history over the last 25 years, how can any contractor believe military claims about how many A/C will be acquired?
58
posted on
02/25/2012 5:23:02 AM PST
by
rbg81
(scillian's)
To: U-238
The USAF is planning to extend the B-52 life span until the year 2040.The B52 was an amazing design, but the USAF is crazy if they think it will serve until 2040. The B52 was first flown in 1952. Having a 90 (!!!) year old aircraft in 2040 would be the equivalent to having the USAF flying biplanes from the 1920's as front line bombers today.
59
posted on
02/25/2012 5:23:23 AM PST
by
6SJ7
(Meh.)
To: Nowhere Man
"...an F-4 is just as fast and can do the same job as an F-22..."Umm...no. (Being polite here.)
60
posted on
02/25/2012 6:26:04 AM PST
by
rlmorel
("A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson