U.S. military said moving ahead on new bomber, page 1

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:21 PM

link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senior Pentagon officials are moving ahead to develop a long-range strike weapon or bomber, a key recommendation in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review that could mean billions of dollars in new business for contractors, a source familiar with the process told Reuters on Tuesday.

Defense Department and Air Force officials agreed in principle on Monday that they needed to start work soon if they wanted to meet the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) goal of having the new weapon ready by 2018, said the source, who asked not to be identified.

...

Defense analysts said the Pentagon had set an ambitious target of 2018, which could indicate that classified work on a new bomber had already progressed fairly well.

in.today.reuters.com...

Pulse Detonation Wave powered hypersonic space plane anyone?

[edit on 13-6-2006 by Number23]

[edit on 6/13/06 by FredT]

TSR2005

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:47 PM

link

Something worth looking into.....Wonder who the contenders might be....

cylon555

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:11 PM

link

Why waste money on a new boomer

truttseeker

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:20 PM

link

Because if the US ever gets into a real war our main strategic heavy bomber(B-52) willl be cannon fodder and we only have 22 B-2's

cylon555

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:47 PM

link

I dont know how high a B-52 can fly but i'm sure no cannon can touch it

plus why do we need another bomber if we have laser guided bombs.

truttseeker

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:53 PM

link

Okay, maybe not cannon fodder, thats not exactly what I meant, but SAM's will blow them out of the air, in no time flat.

Laser guided bombs are no good if you have no bomber to drop them with

cylon555

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:05 PM

link

I may be wrong but did those bombs that got Zarqawi come from a B-52

carcharodon

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:24 PM

link

Originally posted by TSR2005
Something worth looking into.....Wonder who the contenders might be....

Well I would say the usual three suspects Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing...

There is none else really that could develop this kind of program. I look forward to the specs of what they want...

If a heavy bomber or a lighter one?

VType

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:34 PM

link

www.hitechweb.szm.sk...

I found this image of a air frame model being tested. Was wondering about its size seems like it has the dimensions of a bomber. Cant read the captions but X 51 is in the text.
I do believe a new bomber is needed and should incorporate stealth, high speed and very high altitude flight as well as the latest avionics and counter measures available. 20 or 30 super modern bombers would be an amazing tool for the usaf.

jra

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:35 PM

link

Originally posted by Number23
Pulse Detonation Wave powered hypersonic space plane

Now that's a mouth full. Try and say that 10x as fast.

But this sounds like the Long-Range Strike bomber that we've been discussing here for the past 6 months or so. Here's a link to the main thread if you haven't seen it already. The options being considered are a bit more down to Earth. No Pulse detonated-watcha-ma-call-it hyper-wave thingy's.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

FBCKU1996

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:09 AM

link

Originally posted by truttseeker
Okay, maybe not cannon fodder, thats not exactly what I meant, but SAM's will blow them out of the air, in no time flat.

Laser guided bombs are no good if you have no bomber to drop them with

I guess I should take this as a joke. Dont know if you exspect them to fly in alone or that we wouldnt know there would be sams there either. But I do know there not going to be much to worry about for long.

intelgurl

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:35 AM

link

Originally posted by TSR2005
Something worth looking into.....Wonder who the contenders might be....

Here's a good reference article, tells you who and what all the contenders are;
USAF: Long-Range Strike Options Considered

The "manned" possibilities most discussed in the near term, (pre-2025) are the Boeing B-1R Regional Bomber, the intermediate bomber version of the Lockheed's F-22 called the FB-22 and Northrop Grumman's FB-23, a larger framed two-seat F-23 configured for long-range bombing.

Originally posted by cylon555
I dont know how high a B-52 can fly but i'm sure no cannon can touch it

plus why do we need another bomber if we have laser guided bombs.

...And what of cannon fire from say... MiG's?

Originally posted by cylon555
I may be wrong but did those bombs that got Zarqawi come from a B-52

It was 2 F-16's on patrol.
www.af.mil...

Originally posted by VType

I do believe a new bomber is needed and should incorporate stealth, high speed and very high altitude flight as well as the latest avionics and counter measures available. 20 or 30 super modern bombers would be an amazing tool for the usaf.

The X-51 you are referring to is a test platform for combined cycle scramjet engines.
Pratt & Whitney (P&W)/Rocketdyne’s Space Propulsion Division and Boeing’s Transformational Space Systems Division are designing the X-51A scramjet powered flight vehicle to explore the airbreathing system-level potential of scramjets.

truttseeker

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:26 AM

link

Originally posted by FBCKU1996

Originally posted by truttseeker
Okay, maybe not cannon fodder, thats not exactly what I meant, but SAM's will blow them out of the air, in no time flat.

Laser guided bombs are no good if you have no bomber to drop them with

I guess I should take this as a joke. Dont know if you exspect them to fly in alone or that we wouldnt know there would be sams there either. But I do know there not going to be much to worry about for long.

How can you say that? Its kind of like the same situation, I mean Iraq was pretty easy because it was it was mostly tomahawks who knocked out the most dangerous of targets, or f-117 stealth aircraft (sry if im wrong). But when we need a heavy bomber to go on long range strike missions then they will encounter SAM's. Cant get them all

cylon555

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:04 PM

link

Originally posted by cylon555
I may be wrong but did those bombs that got Zarqawi come from a B-52

It was 2 F-16's on patrol.
www.af.mil...

I know i ment that to be sarcastic.
What im saying is if an F-16 can drop a 500 pound bomb with pin point
accuracy why spend billions of dollers and 11 years on something we
don't need.

cylon555

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link

How can you say that? Its kind of like the same situation, I mean Iraq was pretty easy because it was it was mostly tomahawks who knocked out the most dangerous of targets, or f-117 stealth aircraft (sry if im wrong). But when we need a heavy bomber to go on long range strike missions then they will encounter SAM's. Cant get them all
.

Why do we need a new heavy bomber theres not much we cant hit from the sea
with missiles.

chaosrain

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link

Could a "space plane" be the answer to two bomber issues?

1) No current, known bomber can exceed the altitude threshold of the weapons which seek to shoot them down.

2) Explosive ordinance is heavy. With sufficient altitude, a space-based bomber could deploy the previously discussed "rods from god" without the expense of creating/deploying a satellite launch vehicle.

cylon555

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link

Originally posted by chaosrain
Could a "space plane" be the answer to two bomber issues?

Maybe but i'm not a fan of weapons in space i think it's cheating.
You cant defend against them so if you don't do what another
country tell's you to or you do somthing they don't like your
history.

intelgurl

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link

Originally posted by cylon555

Originally posted by cylon555
I may be wrong but did those bombs that got Zarqawi come from a B-52

It was 2 F-16's on patrol.
www.af.mil...

I know i ment that to be sarcastic.
What im saying is if an F-16 can drop a 500 pound bomb with pin point
accuracy why spend billions of dollers and 11 years on something we
don't need.

The new bomber requirements as noted in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) are for a long range, strategic "global strike" vehicle that is supersonic, stealthy, high altitude capable and has the ability to loiter on station as needed. The F-16 on the other hand is a short range fighter bomber which has zero stealthy attributes and not much comparatively in the payload department.

With logic like that, why have a B-1 or a B-2? The F-16 can handle it all. But that is not the case.

As far as not needing a bomber of this described ability, I would refer you to articles on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) as well as the USAF 2025 document you can find on the web.
The US desires to be able to hit a target anywhere on the globe within 2 or 3 hours, this is the Global Strike concept and an F-16 bomb truck does not fit the requirements.

cylon555

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link

I'm not saying we dont need large bombers i'm saying we dont need a new one.

All those things sound great but at what cost.

I may not be so agaisnt this if the military didnt have such a bad record
of bad $billion ideas like the cannon that Rumey cut off at the head.

There are more important things than blowing someone up on the
other side the earth.

Like are border millions of illegals come across that thing thats are bigest
threat now, they say there spending $4mill per mile of that wall. So $1billion
would give us 250 miles of wall thats were the money sould go.
There going to spend $6.1billion for 25 new marine ones for the prez put that
money on the wall to that alone would give us 1525 miles of wall twice the wall
there puting up now.

Sorry for the rant but bad govermet spending gets me going.

ShatteredSkies

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link

Originally posted by truttseeker
Because if the US ever gets into a real war our main strategic heavy bomber(B-52) willl be cannon fodder and we only have 22 B-2's

22 B-2's are overkill if you ask me.

Shattered OUT...