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.
It was clear from his pics that it was THAT SMALL.
But he did not go into details about the issues you mentioned. He did mention that shielding was a problem but, if my memory is accurate, evidently not as terminal a problem as some might suspect. Again, he didn't elaborate.
My impression was that he treaded secrecy lines very carefully though quite confidently and almost nonchalantly.
There are a few rumors that some of the ET craft use nuke engines--though that seems to conflict with the zero-point energy engines most supposedly run on.
Anyways for starters there's a certain small aircraft I call the delta flyer with a 20 ft wingspan that I've seen for at least 8 years now. I've seen this black 'aircraft' loitering around at low altitude that you'd think its a large bird and then within moments it gets up to speeds of over 900mph and cross miles of sky within 5 seconds. I've observed it at altitudes from 400ft to over 15,000 ft.
And there are many other instances; since I first observed it back in 1998 or earlier there are several other types I've cataloged.....
No trouble believing you at all.
I forget the areas in FL that are supposed to be hot beds of such sightings.
Will FREEPMAIL you shortly.
I'm expecting a more or less surprise meteor storm to sweep all satellites out of the skies in our era. Could complicate a lot of things.
I agree. I was on the flight test program.
Again I guess I could see a motive force that small, but for power it would have to be coupled to dynamos. At the time, superconducting generators would not have been available, so he must have been talking about outboard devices.
Intriguing.
How about a fleet of unmanned bombers based on the moon?
From the supplied hints, it wasn't fusion. If cold fusion could be made to work, it could be made that small, but it wouldn't be that powerful.
Think of a design that involves skirting the edge of excursion. A little whiplash from the dragon's tail.
Sadly there are only a few left in existence.
Think of a design that involves skirting the edge of excursion. A little whiplash from the dragon's tail.
= = = =
I'm far from a physcist . . . but reading that and reflecting on other things I've read . . . it appears that you are either very well read or have some inside information or are an extremely good extrapolator.
And I can't even articulate why I'm convinced of that but I'm very convinced of that.
No inside information. I'll go with the well-read and good extrapolator explanation.
Thanks!
Actually, he alluded to NUKE engines MUCH smaller than that. And, there were some hints that some are deployed but I'm sure if he were queried about those hints he could have immediately denied them. I don't recall what they were specifically. I didn't take many notes.
My impression--and I don't know where it comes from in all this--my impression is that the power was immediately electricity and that the electricity powers very exotic UFO types of dynamics, technologies.
I have long had a hunch with scant verification from few puzzle pieces that the radiation aspect of nuclear technologies has been overblown. I don't know whether we or ET's shared technologies to minimize the problems but that those problems have been minimized.
As I understand it--much of my impression from extrapolation from very subtle and tiny bits of puzzle pieces; the oligarchy has not found it in THEIR interest for the general public to think that there are essentially no serious unsolved problems with having cheap nuclear generated electricity.
I believe that nuclear waste can be reduced by more than 95% in volume to what it routinely currently is.
If I could have one wish (other than "to be a good Christian"), it would be to know the darkest secret in the world.
I don't really recall if I've ever come across puzzle pieces that hinted whether it was fusion or more conventional nuclear processes. I wouldn't be that surprised either way.
My impression is that the magnetic technologies the ET craft afforded us--whether reverse engineered or via directly taught/given technologies--that the magnetic technologies could readily be used to contain all manner of things and forces. Perhaps fusion it is. I just don't know at all.
I have never been able to resolve via any individual or collection of puzzle pieces the seeming contradiction between deployed nuclear engines vs zero-point/free energy engines using energies inherent in the quantum levels of reality.
I'm pretty well convinced that the latter are true in 2-3 DIFFERENT ways. I accept, having watched Stanton Friedman's presentation in March 06, that it is highly likely that the rumors of our having UFO type craft with nuclear engines in them--that that's also true. Why both is beyond even my puzzle piece collection and very risky extrapolations or even guided flights of fancy.
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.