Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/19/2015 3:55:32 PM EST
WASHINGTON — In late spring or early summer, the US Air Force will decide who will build its next-generation bomber. Yet, despite all the hype and public interest, the program remains shrouded in mystery.

Click for story..

So what do you all think it is going to be and who gets the contract??


I am gonna guess it will be something like a slimmer faster B2. Like if you mated a B1B and a B2 and as part of it's deployable weapons package it will have the ability to launch actually smaller unmanned aircraft that can be programmed from the aircraft to attack other targets of opportunity they may come across without having to put their aircraft off mission or in more danger.

I am guessing that they will NOT give the contract to Lockheed as they have won the last few aircraft comps and have a track record of major cost over runs in their newer programs.

These are just my guesses
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 3:56:30 PM EST
Is Boeing back off the sanctions list? Can they score the contract period?
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 3:57:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 3:58:25 PM EST by WilliamGray]
How good is it at CAS?
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 3:58:15 PM EST
Batwing on steroids? I thought we had them for a while.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:03:33 PM EST
Why don't they make it small enough to fit in a B52?

You could get a bomber in a bomber that way.

Think of the savings.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:03:43 PM EST
The program is targeting a production line of 80-100 planes. It will replace the fleet of B-52 and B-1 bombers. It will be stealthy, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and optional manning has been discussed. A down-selection will be made this spring or early summer, with initial operating capability planned for the mid-2020s. Nuclear certification will follow two years after that.The target price, set by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is $550 million a copy. To keep the price down, the Air Force is looking to use mature technologies that are available now, rather than launching new developments.
View Quote


Until some genius decides to cut that number to 40 planes and whines it cost 1 billion a copy.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:23:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 6:15:35 PM EST by XD_Fan]
I have a better idea. Instead of building some horrendously expensive stealth bomber to replace the B-2 and B-52, why don't they do a run of new B-52s with modern engines and avionics to replace the ones they're going to try to fly until 2050?

There is zero reason to replace the B-1 and B-2 at this point. For what? A mythical magic stealth super bomber that will be so expensive they can only build 20 of them, take 20 years to get into service, have half the payload of existing platforms, and need four upgrades to meet the minimum mission goals the instant it hits service. How many F-22 were in the original plan? How many updates has it already had? How many more does it need?
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:24:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By BigPony:
WASHINGTON — In late spring or early summer, the US Air Force will decide who will build its next-generation bomber. Yet, despite all the hype and public interest, the program remains shrouded in mystery.

Click for story..

So what do you all think it is going to be and who gets the contract??

View Quote
Airbus
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:26:26 PM EST
Boeing 777 with bomb doors and a tail gun , call it a day
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:30:46 PM EST
I'd expect it to operate more like an F-111 than a B-2.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:33:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 4:36:15 PM EST by LightningII]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By raven:
Airbus
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By raven:
Originally Posted By BigPony:
WASHINGTON — In late spring or early summer, the US Air Force will decide who will build its next-generation bomber. Yet, despite all the hype and public interest, the program remains shrouded in mystery.

Click for story..

So what do you all think it is going to be and who gets the contract??

Airbus



after the Tanker bid, I doubt that airbus will bother bidding on anything.
if they stick to $550 mil per, it may not happen.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:33:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 4:34:11 PM EST by LightningII]
double tap
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:33:46 PM EST
Even if we had the money, ain't no way they are starting today and having IOC ~ 10 years from now. lol
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:40:26 PM EST
They will finally build the Dale Brown dream Mega-Fortress! SkyMasters will get the contract. They will be based out of Battle Mountain.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:45:33 PM EST
In the end it will be a bomber that is required to contain 500 bombs, take off on a 100 foot patch of quicksand, and be able to dogfight with the best of the best.

Midway through development the army will want it to have the capability to run off coal. In 2095 people will realize it is a worthless money pit and end funding for R&D in 3015.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:45:48 PM EST


If the F35 is any indication of future production times.....we're fucked.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 4:52:43 PM EST
The twenty or 30 of whatever new bombers they end up building will mean fuck all if we ever have to fight a full on war with a modern adversary. Sure we can knock over tin pot dictators on a whim any day of the week and I'm sure 20 of these will do just fine at that.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:03:13 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By XD_Fan:
I have a better idea. Instead of building some horrendously expensive stealth bomber to replace the B-2 and B-2, why don't they do a run of new B-52s with modern engines and avionics to replace the ones they're going to try to fly until 2050?

There is zero reason to replace the B-1 and B-2 at this point. For what? A mythical magic stealth super bomber that will be so expensive they can only build 20 of them, take 20 years to get into service, have half the payload of existing platforms, and need four upgrades to meet the minimum mission goals the instant it hits service. How many F-22 were in the original plan? How many updates has it already had? How many more does it need?
View Quote


The B-52 is already hopelessly outdated. We just use it to bomb third world shitholes after modern aircraft blow up whatever remnants of an ADA system they can find.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:08:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 5:10:00 PM EST by DragoMuseveni]
Bombers are so 20th century, what we need are orbital bombardment satellites that can rain down deliver death and destruction in 90 minutes or your money back.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:11:56 PM EST
Advanced long range 'stealth' bombers have certainly proven to be a crucial asset.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:12:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
Bombers are so 20th century, what we need are orbital bombardment satellites that can rain down deliver death and destruction in 90 minutes or your money back.
View Quote

Seriously. The current bombers should last until a 1-drone bomber or 2-sat bomber are deployed.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:14:04 PM EST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edNq0Kmt5jo
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:15:13 PM EST
Forgive my ignorance, but what's wrong with the B1's we have?
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:17:09 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PWA_Commando:
Forgive my ignorance, but what's wrong with the B1's we have?
View Quote

They don't produce pork ANY more
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:18:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PWA_Commando:
Forgive my ignorance, but what's wrong with the B1's we have?
View Quote




Well you see... We put a lot of flight hours on those frames to do shows of force on Jawas.

Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:18:38 PM EST
Build a stealthier version of a B1 and build a shitload of them. Alas that'll never happen
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:18:43 PM EST
IOC in the mid 2020's?

HAHA!

no wait....


AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA­AAHHAHAHAHA!!!!
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:24:54 PM EST
What we need is a good old fashion death star
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:28:25 PM EST
The DOD is wanting to make a transport aircraft that can carry like 6 or 12 predators and launch and land them from it. There is an open posting about it somewhere where they are soliciting designs.
THAT WOULD BE BADASS!
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:44:09 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By whiskerz:
Boeing 777 with bomb doors and a tail gun , call it a day
View Quote


This, but no tail gun. AA missiles. Maybe a forward mounted 30mm cannon, just because.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:45:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:


The B-52 is already hopelessly outdated. We just use it to bomb third world shitholes after modern aircraft blow up whatever remnants of an ADA system they can find.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By XD_Fan:
I have a better idea. Instead of building some horrendously expensive stealth bomber to replace the B-2 and B-2, why don't they do a run of new B-52s with modern engines and avionics to replace the ones they're going to try to fly until 2050?

There is zero reason to replace the B-1 and B-2 at this point. For what? A mythical magic stealth super bomber that will be so expensive they can only build 20 of them, take 20 years to get into service, have half the payload of existing platforms, and need four upgrades to meet the minimum mission goals the instant it hits service. How many F-22 were in the original plan? How many updates has it already had? How many more does it need?


The B-52 is already hopelessly outdated. We just use it to bomb third world shitholes after modern aircraft blow up whatever remnants of an ADA system they can find.

Yes, they were obsolete when the B-1 was built. As they still were when the B-2 was built. My suggestion makes as much sense as replacing the B-1s and B-2s while continuing to fly the B-52 until 2050.

(Sorry, I should have put that at the end of the previous post.)
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:48:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 5:49:39 PM EST by XD_Fan]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
Bombers are so 20th century, what we need are orbital bombardment satellites that can rain down deliver death and destruction in 90 minutes or your money back.
View Quote


Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:59:15 PM EST
What would the cost per unit be for a design that uses the B-2 as the basis for building the new bomber? Could we get it below $500mm by incorporating new technology, materials, and construction techniques?

What does the LRS-B have to do that the B-2 cannot?
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:02:01 PM EST
I think they want it to be faster too
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:03:21 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cheesebeast:
Why don't they make it small enough to fit in a B52?

You could get a bomber in a bomber that way.

Think of the savings.
View Quote

I'd rather see a Russian doll B52. You'd have increasingly smaller B52s exit the bomb bay.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:07:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By samiam513:
In the end it will be a bomber that is required to contain 500 bombs, take off on a 100 foot patch of quicksand, and be able to dogfight with the best of the best.
View Quote


500 bombs INTERNAL so it stays stealthy. Don't forget vertical takeoff and landing capability - while fully loaded. Also, capability to stealthily refuel F-35 and F-22 - without compromising primary mission payload.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:13:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 6:14:49 PM EST by Gamma762]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DnPRK:
I'd expect it to operate more like an F-111 than a B-2.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote

They're apparently shooting for somewhat larger than that, since they're talking about B1 and B52 replacement.

Back when it was a "theatre strike" concept, the FB-111 comparison made perfect sense. Seems it's grown since then.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:33:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 6:36:06 PM EST by FlyingGorilla]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stanag4179:


Seriously. The current bombers should last until a 1-drone bomber or 2-sat bomber are deployed.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stanag4179:
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
Bombers are so 20th century, what we need are orbital bombardment satellites that can rain down deliver death and destruction in 90 minutes or your money back.


Seriously. The current bombers should last until a 1-drone bomber or 2-sat bomber are deployed.


One of the design for growth capabilities of LRS-B is to convert to unmanned operation. As for a space bomber, there was something flying that people I knew at Edwards referred to a "Bouncer" that might fit the bill. But in over 20 years nothing other than scuttlebutt about a black world spaceplane has come out about the program.

Of course the scuttlebutt about black program prototype bombers flying around has been going on for the past three or four years and even though the program has officially been acknowledged, we haven't seen one displayed to the public.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:35:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
As for a space bomber, there was something flying that people I knew at Edwards referred to a "Bouncer" that might fit the bill. But in over 20 years nothing other than scuttlebutt about a black world spaceplane has come out about the program.
View Quote


There was a space bomber concept in the X20 Dynasoar program back in the 50s.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:39:49 PM EST
make it hypersonic and sub-orbital.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:41:01 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By samiam513:
In the end it will be a bomber that is required to contain 500 bombs, take off on a 100 foot patch of quicksand, and be able to dogfight with the best of the best.

Midway through development the army will want it to have the capability to run off coal. In 2095 people will realize it is a worthless money pit and end funding for R&D in 3015.
View Quote




Do you really expect America to survive another 920 years?
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:45:01 PM EST
Speed is the new stealth.

And yes, we will only get about 24 of them before the program is cut. Which means we won't have enough to retire any other bomber so now we will have 4 different bombers.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:47:53 PM EST
Then, there was "THIS"......

WOW!!!!
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 12:44:44 AM EST
If we can't get a hypersonic bomber, then I at least hope we end up with a Mach 2+ capable stealthy bomber that can supercruise, on the order of this...



But considering the anticipated costs for the new bomber and when they expect to field it, it will most likely be an outgrowth of the B-2 program, meaning subsonic performance combined with the latest advances in low observables technology. The NGB looks very much evolutionary and opposed to revolutionary.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 1:06:54 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By XD_Fan:
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
Bombers are so 20th century, what we need are orbital bombardment satellites that can rain down deliver death and destruction in 90 minutes or your money back.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/weapons/rods.jpg
RODS of GOD for the WIN.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 1:13:36 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WilliamGray:
How good is it at CAS?
View Quote

Link Posted: 1/20/2015 1:15:04 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Angel_King:




Well you see... We put a lot of flight hours on those frames to do shows of force on Jawas.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Angel_King:
Originally Posted By PWA_Commando:
Forgive my ignorance, but what's wrong with the B1's we have?




Well you see... We put a lot of flight hours on those frames to do shows of force on Jawas.


Link Posted: 1/20/2015 1:16:05 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cheesebeast:
Why don't they make it small enough to fit in a B52?

You could get a bomber in a bomber that way.

Think of the savings.
View Quote


Yo, dawg, I heard you like bombers....
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 1:19:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/20/2015 1:25:09 AM EST by thefreshman991]
I suspect some of the technology that has gone into the X-37 as a test item will be used for the new bomber.

In flight orbital bomber unmanned that can hit a target anywhere in the world in 15 20 minutes? Maybe less?

JDAM
Nuclear payload
Cruise missiles

Nice.

When a predator can't do it drop a 2000lb bomb on them.

Win Win I say.

ETA: Skip the 2000lb bombs... you could use kinetic energy weapons if its orbital... none nuclear projectiles that would be like shooting a 40lb ball of iron at a target at 30,000mph... the result would be complete destruction that you could walk into after a couple hours.

Link Posted: 1/20/2015 1:22:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/20/2015 1:24:04 AM EST by ziarifleman]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By thefreshman991:
I suspect some of the technology that has gone into the X-37 as a test item will be used for the new bomber.

In flight orbital bomber unmanned that can hit a target anywhere in the world in 15 20 minutes? Maybe less?

JDAM
Nuclear payload
Cruise missiles

Nice.

When a predator can't do it drop a 2000lb bomb on them.

Win Win I say.

View Quote

This is essentially what a Minuteman 3 does. Why would you replicate the capability?

Bombers exist to burn our enemies into oblivion with nuclear fire, and they exist as a separate service so the Army doesn't use them to bomb mud huts in tactical operations.
Somewhere along the way there was a failure of vision.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 1:26:09 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ziarifleman:

This is essentially what a Minuteman 3 does. Why would you replicate the capability?

Bombers exist to burn our enemies into oblivion with nuclear fire, and they exist as a separate service so the Army doesn't use them to bomb mud huts in tactical operations.
Somewhere along the way there was a failure of vision.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
Originally Posted By thefreshman991:
I suspect some of the technology that has gone into the X-37 as a test item will be used for the new bomber.

In flight orbital bomber unmanned that can hit a target anywhere in the world in 15 20 minutes? Maybe less?

JDAM
Nuclear payload
Cruise missiles

Nice.

When a predator can't do it drop a 2000lb bomb on them.

Win Win I say.


This is essentially what a Minuteman 3 does. Why would you replicate the capability?

Bombers exist to burn our enemies into oblivion with nuclear fire, and they exist as a separate service so the Army doesn't use them to bomb mud huts in tactical operations.
Somewhere along the way there was a failure of vision.


Kinetic Munitions instead of conventional. Same boom as nuclear... no effects.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top