I think it will look like this:
Posted on 07/20/2006 5:16:22 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
THE US Air Force will earmark billions of dollars in its next five year budget plan to help meet the Pentagon's goal to develop a new long-range bomber by 2018.
The timetable was aggressive but achievable, given the new bomber would be likely to include technologies already under development by the Pentagon's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency and the US aerospace and defence industry, an official said today.
"Substantial resources will be dedicated across the future years defence plan from 2008-2013 to get there," the official said.< "It will be billions."
Defence analyst Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute said it would cost around $US20 billion ($26.7 billion) to develop and build a new bomber, unless it was based on an existing aircraft such as the Lockheed F-22 fighter jet.
The air force began a formal analysis of the alternatives for long range strike last October that could help shape the requirements for a future bomber competition.
Officials now plan to split the analysis into separate sections addressing the need for new long-range missiles, which could hit targets within a few hours, and the requirements for a next-generation bomber, which would be able to loiter over a given area for a longer time.
Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have already expressed interest in the bomber competition.
The idea of developing an F-22 bomber variant, first championed by former Air Force Secretary James Roche, was still being considered, Mr Thompson said.
The aircraft's radar-evading characteristics and its supersonic speed could be attractive features for a new bomber.
He predicted that the new bomber would be manned, despite increasing speculation about an unmanned aircraft that could be remotely piloted like the Predator flying missions over Iraq daily, or fly autonomous like the Northrop Global Hawk, which has also been used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"No amount of software is going to allow you to cope with all the things that come up in combat. You need a real pilot," Mr Thompson said.
I don't doubt it - that's why talk of building more conventional sounds more like a payoff to certain Congressmen and defense firms than a needed program.
= = = =
Reportedly, the Space Shuttle is the same sort of boondoggle, make works, smoke screen type of program.
But then some people insist we have had a bases on the moon and Mars for years, too.
God knows. Will be interesting to see what all's true and what's not.
You need a bomber that can identify a terrorist from the other side of the planet, fly to that location and drop red dye all over him--the kind the banks use.
and drop red dye all over him--the kind the banks use.
= = = =
Could we at least mix some itching powder with the red dye?
Maybe some poisonous Australian spiders?
SOMETHING?
I think it will look like this:
At the way the cost over runs have been flowing, plus the trend by congress to always cut airframes (eg the Raptor was originally supposed to be over 750, but now will be less than 200 - and due to the fewer airframes being built, each aircraft will be significantly more expensive than previously projected), and the way every successive generation gets more expensive; I'd say that by the time this bomber comes out Congress will probably approve only 2 of them. And one of those will be the test prototype!
Just look at the JSF. Once upon a time that thing was supposed to be a 'cheap' but very effective fighter. One time it was supposed to go for 40 mil. Now they say 60 mil. The cost overuns are still continuing, and by the time it is all said and done the plane will be overweight and considerably more expensive than it was intended to be (actually it is already both of those, it is just that it will probably head even more in that direction).
Anyways, I know this new bomber, when it comes out, will make the world gasp. When the F-117 came out it was amazing (and although it is 'old' for the US the rest of the world still has to come up with a Night Hawk analogue, whcih says something about the F-117). Then the B-2. And in the world of fighters the F-22 is simply without comparison. Thus this new bomber, whatever they decide it to be, will be a flying wet dream. Absolutely amazing.
The thing is you will be sure that the sabres and cutlasses will be swinging and slashing in Congress and the Pentagon as all sorts of camps and 'mafia' pop up all over the place.
Damn skippy idea there.
How odd but I've heard the exact same thing.
Fascinating. How long ago?
I lost contact with my source decades ago.
Manned aircraft are so twentieth century. This is what they need:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/060716_popsci_switchblade.html
Yeah, sure. I highly doubt it. Even if true, you'd have to test it to know it really works. That would give their presence away.
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.