Pentagon wants new AF Bomber!

"Stealthy mach 2 long range heavy bomber". Here is Lockheed's concept for just that. Of course if work on PDEs pays off, we might go for Northrup's High supersonic concept.


Low supersonic

Dimensions

In flight

I know MUCH of PDE's is Classified...But:
They stated in that link that they wanted a loiter time of several hours...and there also getting to your target, and keeping enough fuel to get home...So, my question is: Is it possible to 'turn off' some PDS tubes...basically seal them up, so no fuel enters it, that way you could (possibly) have a higher efficient loiter.

do ya get that?

Originally posted by Murcielago
Conventional ICBM has to be a ify item...

Sorry to say it, but conventional ICBM's are Stupid! Any launch would trigger World War 3. Think about it since the 1960's, ALL of our ICBM's have been nuclear! ICBM has become synonimus with Nuclear Weapons. Even if we change the warheads, the stigma of being nuclear will still be there. The second one is launched, other nations are going to automatically think "Nuclear Attack" and panic! This will trigger a nuclear exchange!

Remember, the nation on the recieveing end only has 35 minutes from launch to inpact. No sane leader would wait it out to see what kind of warhead the missile is carrying.

What do I think of Conventional ICBM's? Hmm... Suicide by Nuke, Anyone?

Tim

by the way the b-1 carries 50,000 lbs of pgm's, jdam, jassm, wcmd, you name it

Bout time the Nighthawks were retired.

F-117 Nighthawk

File that one under "It seemed like a good idea at the time"

Originally posted by ghost
The second one is launched, other nations are going to automatically think "Nuclear Attack" and panic! This will trigger a nuclear exchange!

Not if the premier nuclear powers were warned beforehand. As for the little guys with nuclear weapons I doubt their ability to even detect it. Now, would we really attack the Russians with one ICBM if this were an actual attack on them? Personally I think a conventional ICBM is an idea which has to be looked at. It would offers us global reach within minutes and by virtue of its use would encourage cooperation by some nations.

The only fallback to this is that we would be setting a precedent which would surely be followed. I doubt our commanders would like the idea that the Russians can target our forces anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes with conventional weapons, that we may not be able to stop.

By the way, here’s an article over concerns that Moscow has voiced over a US proposal to mount conventional warheads on ICBM’s.

The Kremlin voiced worry Thursday at reported US plans to mount non-nuclear warheads on intercontinental strategic missiles to strike targets anywhere in the world within minutes and with no prior warning and called for talks on subject.

"I think this would be an irresponsible decision," said Sergei Sobyanin, the newly-appointed head of President Vladimir Putin's Kremlin administration, in a briefing to a group of foreign reporters.

The use of such a weapon could produce confusion and an unpredictable response from other countries, Sobyanin said.
"This is an extremely dangerous trend," he said, adding: "There needs to be a dialogue about this."

Link

^^^^ makes alot more sense than make some hypersnic cruise missile since ICBM's have a 5000-7000 mile range, 15,000mph midcourse spped, and fly hundred of miles above the earth. I hear it as one of the plans in the full spectrum dominance thing. I hear they're planning to make a fighter bomber variant of the Raptor. It's larger but since it's design is much newer it's stealthier. FB 22's and B-3's would make a nice duo.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by urmomma158]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not if the premier nuclear powers were warned beforehand. As for the little guys with nuclear weapons I doubt their ability to even detect it. Now, would we really attack the Russians with one ICBM if this were an actual attack on them? Personally I think a conventional ICBM is an idea which has to be looked at.

The only fallback to this is that we would be setting a precedent which would surely be followed. I doubt our commanders would like the idea that the Russians can target our forces anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes with conventional weapons, that we may not be able to stop.

Still too risky! Your also asking a lot of people to blindly put their faith in you and go on your word alone. Russia and the US aren't the only folks with Ballistic Missiles anymore. Also, you are setting a dangerous president here. History has shown that once one nation changes the rules, others fallow in short order.

Back to the issue of trust. If you let one play with ICBM's others will follow. Let's concider North Korea for a moment. We all know that Kim Jung Ill is a dangerous and unpredictable person. If he launched an ICBM and said that it is a conventional warhead instead of a nuke, are you ready to place you blind faith in him? I'm not!

Have you ever heard the phrase: "Letting the Genie out of the Bottle!" Once one country has used a convetional ICBM, the door is wide open for everyone else. You are now back to the issue of blind trust. Are you sure you ready to open the bottle? Remember, once you cross that line, you can't turn back!

Tim

Also, you are setting a dangerous president here.

That would be G W Bush I take it?

Originally posted by waynos

That would be G W Bush I take it?

True! Bush is a dangerous president.

However, I was referring to the idea of sending the message to other countries that useing ICBM's is acceptable! You're opening the door for someone who isn't honest to sneek Nuclear weapon into play in war for the first time since 1945. There is no way to tell what kind of warhead that missile has until it goes off. If it's a nuke, by then, your much too late!

The problem is keeping countries like North Korea honest. You only get ONE try to guess correctly, if you're wrong, you get a front row seat to the world's most horrific man made tragidy! Are you still intrested?

Tim

Obviously there would have to be some acceptable and reasonable way to accurately discern between a conventional and nuclear warhead before I would be behind such a plan. I’m merely saying that it should not be simply dismissed altogether.

Also, it does not matter if N. Korea lunched a conventional or nuclear tipped missile, just them launching any missile would get the US’s attention, and its trajectory can be calculated before it hits its target. So either way they would still be in trouble if they launched a missile at another country. Ultimately its the reality that you should not start a war you cant win which will keep the N. Koreans in check.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Obviously there would have to be some acceptable and reasonable way to accurately discern between a conventional and nuclear warhead before I would be behind such a plan. I’m merely saying that it should not be simply dismissed altogether.

WestPoint23,

That's just it! Using current science and technology, we can't do that yet! The Last I heard, they were still trying to perfect a reliable way to tell warheads from hollow dummies. They had an experimental system they were trying called the Neutral Partical Beam. I don't know if it has ever been perfected, and that was here in the USA! What about the rest of the world? Many of the nations with Nuclear capibility haven't caught up to us yet.

Until the technolgy to tell the difference exists, this game is much too dangerous to play. That's why I keep saying this is a very dangerous idea. If we allow the weapons and the strategy to jump ahead of the science, we'll have weapons that the world isn't ready for. You are going to cause other nations to panic, and the results could be catastrophic on a scale never before seen!

Wait before you move, or it could cost you everything! Right now, the gains are not worth the horrifing risks!

Tim

[edit on 16-5-2006 by ghost]

Originally posted by ghost
Wait before you move, or it could cost you everything! Right now, the gains are not worth the horrifing risks!

Point taken, hopefully Congress doesn't get to exited about what they may consider a relatively cheap global reach weapon system.

I really don't think a ICBM conventional war head delivery system is cost effective. The pay load carried by current ICBM's is only a couple tons and they cost millions to produce and millions to provide maintenance plus the facilities and infrastructure needed to support maintenance. Also these weapons could be configured for nuclear weapons and their production/standing numbers would be subject the various treaties we have signed limiting nuclear tipped ICBM weapons.

Each time a conventional ICBM was fired the US would be at a disadvantage in numbers and type of nuclear delivery systems until the limited production line could replace it.

Again, each time one of these was fired Russia would take their safety off put their finger on the trigger and wait to see. Any other response by the Russians or the Americans would be foolish.

On the plus side you wouldn't necessarily need to use conventional explosive but instead small solid reentry vehicles traveling 15,000+ mph would have a similar effect with out using space for an explosive that detonates at a speed only slightly faster than the speed of the vehicle it's self. Also on the plus side is that they could actually be affordable if the US continues it's wistful spending on research development. If the B-2 and and F-22 are any kind of a bench mark we will end up our hypersonic bomber 20 or 30 years from now and we will end up buying only 10 of them.

Originally posted by j787878
Each time a conventional ICBM was fired the US would be at a disadvantage in numbers and type of nuclear delivery systems until the limited production line could replace it.

The US could reconfigure and use decommissioned ICBM’s which would otherwise go to the scrap yard, ICBM’s such as the LGM-118A Peacekeeper which we foolishly decommissioned very recently.

You're still looking at a huge cost. You have to reconfigure them for conventional weapons, refurbish them, refuel them, etc. You're still looking at millions per missile. Not to mention as was stated before, an ICBM with conventional weapons is just DUMB.

Its better than spending billions on R&D for a hypersonic global strike vehicle or system, which may in the future yield a handful of systems which in turn cost hundreds of millions and may be subject to cuts and cancellation along the way. Or you could use a proven system with existing technology for a fraction of the price and put it into use now, rather than later.


[edit on 27-5-2006 by WestPoint23]

Yeah, you're right. Let's use the ONE system that is GUARANTEED to start WWIII, and send it nuclear immediately rather than develop one that will lead to all kinds of new technology, simply because we'll have to wait to get it. Certainly makes a lot of sense to me.

There are ways by which such a system can be designed so that the risk of starting WWIII, as you put it, can be minimized, or even eliminated. Point being, such a platform should not be dismissed outright. And you could still develop your costly future system(s), if you wish, while using this idea as a stop gap until those future weapons materialize, if ever.
Also, does anyone think the idea that a single ICBM launch from the US will start WWIII is a bit, overblown?