The Future USAF Bomber: Is the Long Range Strike Initiative Here Already In The Form of a YF-23?

RichardPrice
These things still require a huge ground based control presence

The Global Hawk is completely autonomous, the whole flight from take off, fly, to land is all done by a pre-designed route using GPS, its only takes a couple clicks of the mouse on the ground. and I have seen video of this land and its better then people can do and fog means nothing.
Most UAV's like the Predator or X-45 require pilots but they are on the ground instead, but the Global Hawk is automated.

RP
Would you get into a car that had no driver, yet was speeding at 80mph down a freeway?

maybe, it depends, First I would have to know how it works, and see evidence of it being reliable, I know future cars will have an auto-driver type of a button and that will be a good day, not only less accidents, but it would be nice to be able to get home after being wasted in your own vehicle, or for road trips (never get lost, roadtrips then might actually be fun and be considered a stressless vacation), or if your just to tired.

FredT
No more than say people would accept a Ohio SSBN that had no crew.

even I don't like the sound of that. But the X-45 for instance, the bomb droping in 100% ground controled. Not matter how advanced your new AI system is I would never give it control of the weapons payload.

originally posted by: longbow


Well, I don't understand the F/B-22 idea too. I think the larger X-45 would be better for this purpose. It's not supersonic, but it would be much cheaper (I think at least 12-15UCAVs for the price of 1 F/B-22). And it is unmanned so it could be send on suicidal mision. Combination of cruise misilles, UCAVs and todays strategical bombers is enough IMO. And instead investing into the F/B-22 the AF should buy more Raptors. Besides I think F/B-22 looks more like medium not long range bomber.

The FB-22 would have had greater operating range than the X-45C, and the Northrop Grumman F/B-23 derivative of the YF-23 and Boeing B-1R (a slightly faster B-1B with both air-to-air and air-to-ground capability as well as F119s) were likewise designed for the regional bomber niche. When the FB-22, F/B-23, and B-1R were conceived, the USAF wanted an interim bomber to be fielded in the 2010s, but the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review that directed the Air Force to develop to long-range strike bomber meant that the FB-22, F/B-23, and B-1R remained design studies only. Last December, the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider was rolled out after seven years of development, becoming the first strategic bomber to be built since the late 1980s. Seems the USAF decided that supersonic speed would be detrimental to the stealth capabilities of its forthcoming replacement for the B-52 and B-1B.

Link:
web.archive.org...://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol2/num2/story01.html
www.flightglobal.com...