Author Topic: Pentagon Calls For New Long Range Bomber (Read 567 times)

RAIDER14 · « **on:** February 06, 2006, 05:03:55 PM »

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2006, 08:36:24 PM »

As much as I am in support of a strong military
I am afraid at this point in time I have to say "No" to this project.

As we and the military has more pressing needs at this point in time and have other effective ways to deliver ordinance to target by a variety of other means

gofaster · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2006, 10:24:03 AM »

Its about time! Hasn't the B-52 done enough?!

An unmanned long-range bomber would be interesting. It would certainly risk fewer American lives and possibly get the job done at less cost in aircrew training. The Air Force would also need fewer personnel per plane.

There'd also be the added safety of not needing mid-air refueling. No more need to launch a tanker into a racetrack orbit in the middle of the Atlantic, circling for hours waiting for the bomber to show up. A no-pit-stop flight would also increase response time.

Improved response time, less risk to airmen, cost savings in aircrew training, savings in force reduction, increased safety... sounds like a plan to me!

RTSigma · « **Reply #3 on:** February 07, 2006, 10:34:33 AM »

The B-52 has a service time until 2045. It still works wonderfully and can still be upgraded to work with current technology.

I'd rather have the money spent on something for the troops, like a close-support vehicle(or plane).

texace · « **Reply #4 on:** February 07, 2006, 10:51:43 AM »

The Strat's going be in service for quite some time, yet. The airframe is remarkable as is the payload. What could they replace it with? Certainly nothing bigger...it cost too much to get the B-36 to fly. Something smaller wouldn't have the same punch the Strat's got.

An interesting conumdrum.

indy007 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:09:17 AM »

Skunk Work's article in the Wall Street Journal

Quote

The Skunk Works's new concepts, like the morphing drone, are more ambitious. With funding from the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa, the Skunk Works set out to develop a plane whose wings can fold inward in flight so it can transform from a slow, loitering aircraft into a speedy plane that swoops in to drop a bomb. The project tests the viability of new materials for aircraft skins and "smart" controls that enable the plane to morph within "10 to 20 seconds without falling out of the sky," Mr. Cappuccio says.

The drone hasn't yet made it aloft, however. First, a prototype was damaged during ground tests, and in September, Lockheed says it crashed on takeoff because of a glitch in flight-control software supplied by another company. Mr. Cappuccio, who believes such a drone could be developed within five to six years, isn't deterred. "Skunk Works is one place where you can fail successfully," he says. Lockheed is moving ahead without further Pentagon funding for now and aiming for a flight test in June. At the least, its continuing research could lead to advances in technologies for the skin of many types of aircraft.

The Skunk Works has fresh Darpa backing for another curious drone, dubbed the Cormorant. It would be fired out of a submarine missile tube, unfurl itself and carry out surveillance or combat sorties over a range of about 500 miles. Upon return, the drone would ditch itself in the sea and be hauled in by a robotic arm on the sub. Lockheed, working with General Dynamics Corp., plans underwater trials to evaluate the launch and retrieval systems, as well as the structural impact of a splashdown. If the Cormorant is technically feasible, it could offer the Navy a cost-effective way to give submarines their own reconnaissance capability, Mr. Cappuccio says.

Further off, he notes, is the Falcon, a conceptual drone bomber that would fly at Mach 9 near the edge of the atmosphere. In addition, the Skunk Works is currently assisting Northrop's development of a combat drone -- in part because Lockheed wants to keep up with emerging technologies in preparation for an expected competition for a new manned bomber. Mr. Cappuccio declines to comment on an Aviation Week & Space Technology report that the Skunk Works is designing a stealthy, long-endurance spy drone like one Darpa funded it to study in the 1990s.

Neat stuff.

texace · « **Reply #6 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:11:29 AM »

Hmm, considering how long it takes the Skunk Works to get aircraft into production, we might be seeing those concepts by late 2012 or later. I mean, the Raptor's been in development, what, 12 years now?

Should be interesting. Those look like really cool aircraft.

nuchpatrick · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:15:01 AM »

Yeah the only thing is the B-52 will run out of parts, theres only so many planes left in the scrap yard to be cut up for parts..

Heck even the aging A-10's have gone through wing-spar re-enforcement procedures. There hacking up remains of those fromt he bone yard as well.

Its only due time will they run out of serviceable parts for these aging aircraft. I love them both but theres a time when we do need to retire them. Just like the F-14's

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:15:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by gofaster
Its about time! Hasn't the B-52 done enough?!

And for what enemy do we NEED this kind of bomber for?

What is the need for a new bomber?
What can it do that cant be done through other less expencive means?

indy007 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:18:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by texace
Hmm, considering how long it takes the Skunk Works to get aircraft into production, we might be seeing those concepts by late 2012 or later. I mean, the Raptor's been in development, what, 12 years now?

Should be interesting. Those look like really cool aircraft.

The Desert Hawk drone system was developed in 127 days, with a total cost of $400,000. First 6 airframes, command & control laptops, etc. Granted, it's not a full sized combat aircraft by any means, but at least it's a good trend to start

texace · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:20:17 AM »

I was refering to actual production, but you're right, it is a good start.

Chairboy · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:30:17 AM »

I guess I don't see the missing capability in the current fleet. The B-2 seems well suited for the role, and could probably even be modified to be a UAV.

Also, what about the Tactical Tomahawk? Modify an existing platform, and remember to update the software to do bomb release instead of running into things, and you've saved a bundle. The TT is designed to loiter, so it could offer datalink access to soldiers in the field. They'd point and click their targets, and a nearby TT-Bomber would be able to put iron on target right away.

texace · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:40:16 AM »

The Spirit already costs $2 billion, and making it a UAV would drive the cost up even more. There are less than 12 (I think) in the Air Force rotation and they're rarely used. Deployed properly they're a great asset, but they can't be used like the Pentagon wants. The B-52s are used extensively but parts will run out eventually and the airframes can only be upgraded so many times before they just won't stand up anymore. They're going to have to develop a new bomber before 2050 if they hope to remain in the arms race.

Chairboy · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2006, 12:05:06 PM »

So you're asserting that bombers are not heading towards obsolecense?

My belief is that the price of smart weapons will drop enough that they will replace bombers. Tiny cruise missiles that can dodge through canyons (avoiding threats that would get a bomber) will drop in price, and improvements in artillery and soldier deployed weapons (like the smart guns that can fire electronically fused grenades) will dominate the battlefield of tomorrow. Saturation bombing is going to be less and less relevant going forward based on the nature of threats we're facing. No big standing armies, it's more person-to-person now.

I'm guessing that a new bomber project would become seen similar to the Seawolf submarine: A fantastic technology that can do amazing things... that are no longer needed.

indy007 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2006, 12:11:12 PM »

Don't forget the drive to reduce the economic & political costs of war. If you've managed to field proven technology that replaces 50% of your combat manpower, then casualties will drop accordingly. It's all tied together with the "net-centric" concept being developed. imho, a couple guys with no threat to them, hiding behind a computer monitor are significantly more dangerous than somebody that can get killed in their job. Less Cindy Sheehan's pushing for your country to lose the political initiative.

I think warfare around 2030 or so will probably sound something like this...

Guy in an air-conditioned trailer #1: !(*@&#. I just lost another drone.

Guy in an air-conditioned trailer #2: There's 5 more behind it, grab the next one in the stack.

Guy in an air-conditioned trailer #1: Yeah I'm already on it. Hunting for the flight that shot at me right now. Last contacts showed them running home. What mission are you on?

Guy in an air-conditioned trailer #2: Dropped smart pigs on a T-72 column a few minutes ago, tasked a hawk to go see the results, had a good SEAD strike over blah blah airfield... n00bs left their 'dar on. Oh, and the vulch light just came on at that 2k field.

Guy in an air-conditioned trailer #1: Man, good day for you... how's your stats for this tour?

Less cost, less manpower, less causulties, big force multipliers.