User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 4:55:32 PM EDT
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 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 4:56:30 PM EDT
[#1]
Is Boeing back off the sanctions list? Can they score the contract period?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 4:57:24 PM EDT
[#2]
How good is it at CAS?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 4:58:15 PM EDT
[#3]
Batwing on steroids? I thought we had them for a while.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:03:33 PM EDT
[#4]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:03:43 PM EDT
[#5]
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. Until some genius decides to cut that number to 40 planes and whines it cost 1 billion a copy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:23:53 PM EDT
[#6]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:24:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: 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?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:26:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Boeing 777 with bomb doors and a tail gun , call it a day
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:30:46 PM EDT
[#9]
I'd expect it to operate more like an F-111 than a B-2.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:33:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Airbus Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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??
after the Tanker bid, I doubt that airbus will bother bidding on anything. if they stick to $550 mil per, it may not happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:33:45 PM EDT
[#11]
double tap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:33:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Even if we had the money, ain't no way they are starting today and having IOC ~ 10 years from now. lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:40:26 PM EDT
[#13]
They will finally build the Dale Brown dream Mega-Fortress! SkyMasters will get the contract. They will be based out of Battle Mountain.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:45:33 PM EDT
[#14]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:45:48 PM EDT
[#15]
If the F35 is any indication of future production times.....we're fucked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 5:52:43 PM EDT
[#16]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:03:13 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:08:23 PM EDT
[#18]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:11:56 PM EDT
[#19]
Advanced long range 'stealth' bombers have certainly proven to be a crucial asset.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:12:12 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:14:04 PM EDT
[#21]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edNq0Kmt5jo |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:15:13 PM EDT
[#22]
Forgive my ignorance, but what's wrong with the B1's we have?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:17:09 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Forgive my ignorance, but what's wrong with the B1's we have? They don't produce pork ANY more |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:18:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:18:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Build a stealthier version of a B1 and build a shitload of them. Alas that'll never happen
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:18:43 PM EDT
[#26]
IOC in the mid 2020's?
HAHA! no wait.... AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAHHAHAHAHA!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:24:54 PM EDT
[#27]
What we need is a good old fashion death star
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:28:25 PM EDT
[#28]
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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:44:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boeing 777 with bomb doors and a tail gun , call it a day This, but no tail gun. AA missiles. Maybe a forward mounted 30mm cannon, just because. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:45:47 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:48:17 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 6:59:15 PM EDT
[#32]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:02:01 PM EDT
[#33]
I think they want it to be faster too
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:03:21 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. I'd rather see a Russian doll B52. You'd have increasingly smaller B52s exit the bomb bay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:07:36 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:13:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd expect it to operate more like an F-111 than a B-2. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:33:07 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seriously. The current bombers should last until a 1-drone bomber or 2-sat bomber are deployed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:35:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. There was a space bomber concept in the X20 Dynasoar program back in the 50s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:39:49 PM EDT
[#39]
make it hypersonic and sub-orbital.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:41:01 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Do you really expect America to survive another 920 years? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:45:01 PM EDT
[#41]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 7:47:53 PM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 1:44:44 AM EDT
[#43]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 2:06:54 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 2:13:36 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How good is it at CAS? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 2:15:04 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well you see... We put a lot of flight hours on those frames to do shows of force on Jawas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 2:16:05 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Yo, dawg, I heard you like bombers.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 2:19:43 AM EDT
[#48]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 2:22:15 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2015 2:26:09 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
