Skip to comments.Breaking Silence About the B-3
Posted on 03/13/2008 5:37:53 PM PDT by Renfield
March 10, 2008: Stung by rumors that they were not serious about developing a new heavy bomber, the U.S. Air Force announced that it was developing such an aircraft, that it would be in service by 2018, and would be able to operate with, or without, a crew. The implication was that the design of the new bomber was already quite advanced, and that it was, like the B-2, being handled as a "black project" (all work done in secrecy, until ready for production.)
The new bomber would be similar to the current B-2 in many ways. That is, it would be stealthy, have a crew of only two, and be capable of staying in the air for over 24 hours at a time. The "B-3" would probably also be capable of super-cruise (travelling long distances at very high speeds), and would definitely have a full array of the latest sensors and communications capabilities. The biggest potential problem is cost. The B-2 bombers were so expensive that only 21 were built. One recently crashed. Adding in the development expenses, each B-2 cost about two billion dollars. If the B-3 costs a lot more, the air force will have a hard time selling it to Congress. This would be the case even if the air force came up with a design that amounted to a "semi-space" ship, that travelled at hypersonic speeds (enabling it to reach any point on the planet in a few hours). Price has definitely become a factor, and that may be why the air force has been reluctant to release any details on the next generation heavy bomber.
Bring back some B-52’s back from the Boneyard, that will do the trick.
“have a crew of only two, “
The B-2 is so computer operated that it has a crew of 2 pilots and a dog.
The pilots job is to feed the dog, and the dogs job is to bite the pilots if they touch anything.
The B-2 bombers were so expensive
thatbecause only 21 were built.
Buff pilots say that when the last B-2 is retired in Arizona, it will be a B-52 that brings the pilots back to Mo.
My father flew chase on some of those test flights
Why not have a supersonic stealth unmanned heavy bomber aircraft? Wouldn’t that cut costs drastically?
***Stung by rumors that they were not serious about developing a new heavy bomber, the U.S. Air Force announced that it was developing such an aircraft, that it would be in service by 2018, ***
Shades of Jimmie Carter spilling his guts about the first Stealth Bomber while it was still Top Secret.
The B-52 has loads of capacity. Just fill it full of cruise missiles and use them to clear the area ahead of the flight path.
Is that the XB-70 Valkrie?
We used to dream of what future aircraft could look like and be like in the late 60s.
After the Boeing 747, everything just stopped as far as design development, except for the Stealth programs.
From 1945 to 1970 aircraft design and development was at warp speed.
After that, poof!
Having loved 2001: A Space Odyssey, including the Mad Magazine version, it has been a disappointing 38 years since the 1970 unveiling of the 747. We got the Space Shuttle, one of the most ugly air/space craft ever devised.
Fixed it for ya (except your spelling).
Isn’t the fighter in the background similar to what President Bush flew in the TXANG?
“If you really want to let a country know that we’re coming...”
Just don’t let any of our smaller jets fly close to it.
I.e.,”Midair Disaster” at
Thank you, I was going to say that. As the person who machined all of the major parts to this airplane, I saw how much was spent on tooling. Many more COULD have been made at a much smaller cost, but it was not to be.
Our neighbor, the late Emil Pipersky, helped design that and the SST at North American.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.