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.
If they want killer range and be able to drop LOTS of ordnance, they should base the platform on Phantom Works' BWB.
What is your source/authority for these comments on the B-1B bomber?
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/fb-22.htm
http://www.topfighters.com/fighterplanes/raptor/fb22.html It is a really interesting idea in theory. However, there is a rather negative CRS Report for Congress written in 2004. It is available as a PDF.
There is also a proposal to modernise the B-1 to the B-1R
The B-1R is a proposed replacement for the B-1B fleet. Boeing's director of global strike integration, Rich Parke, was first quoted about the "B-1R" bomber in Air Force Magazine. Parke said theB-1R (R stands for "regional") would be a Lancer with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and F-22 engines. Its new top speed—Mach 2.2—would be purchased at the price of a 20% reduction of the B-1B's combat range. This proposal would involve modifying existing aircraft. The FB-22 and YF-23 are alternative proposals.
Additional enhancements would include network-centric capabilities, air-to-air engagement, active electronically-scanned array radar, improved defensive systems, and opening up existing external hard points for conventional weapons.
One never knows......... I've always suspected that we've had some kind of Doomsday last-resort kind of defensive/offensive capability in the works. Who wouldn't, if they had any access at all to captured/recovered alien technology. I believe Roswell actually happened, more or less as described by witnesses and participants, and that deep top secret research into last-resort weaponry has been going on ever since. If it does exist, why put it on display unnecessarily? It would really be cool to have a fleet of *unusual* aircraft/spacecraft to deploy if the balloon really goes up.
On the other hand, all the fumbling and stumbling going on for decades around world crisis points makes me wonder if we really do have anything better than conventional satellites up there keeping an eye on things.
I think a fleet of bombers flying wing-to-wing for as far as the eye can see would have an awesomly chilling effect on our adversaries.
damm near silent, just a whoosh when gaining altitude.
Thanks for the link.
Clicked on your link. Ironic to see the B-52 (as mothership to the Pegasus) and its possible successor, the X-43A, on the same NASA page.
Can't help but wonder about weapon targeting and dynamics (release and flight control) at Mach 7. Rear ejection a la A-5 Vigilante/reentry heat shielding/offboard terminal guidance? Hmmm...
maybe they would slow down for the bombing run... not sure.. the scramjet technology isnt even fully tested all the way yet so.. not really sure, but it would be neat. :)
Is that a B-32?
Bad link...
And the mission of this bomber will be what, exactly? (As compared to the capability of the B1 or B2, or grand Buff).
How much of this new bomber is made necessary because of China?
Arrrgg.
It's one of those "we don't like link sites"
Here is the url.
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/farmer/120/2872.jpg
Space-based laser weapons capable of instantly vaporizing an adversary's bases without warning would be considerably more chilling - at a tenth of the cost.
The next front is in space - we've got to stop screwing around with minimal refinements to the last war's weapons systems just to provide jobs and kickbacks in certain Congressional districts.
And with all the carbon fiber going into the wings and fuselages it would reduce carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere.
I'm sure the environmentalists would approve. It would be good for the environment.
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.