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.
....Bob
Correction:
The B-2 bombers were so expensivethatbecause 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.
....Bob
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70_Valkyrie
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.
Interesting.
Thanks for prompting me to do a little hunting for XB-70 info.
Even if it’s from Wikipedia, I do like the first photo they have of
the XB-70 flying over rocky mountains...looks like a futuristic
spaceship cruising some desolate, rocky moon.
Here’s a link to the full resolution version of the photo
(WARNING: pretty big image for dial-up users!)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/North_American_XB-70_in_Flight_EC68-2131.jpg
Bush flew the F 104. The one in the picture looks like a bigger plane to me, maybe the F106 delta dart.
Yep—not just tooling. All of the design and development costs, infrastructure, training, etc. Congress and DOD need a basic lesson in economic ordering quantity. Building 20 of just about anything is bound to be expensive. IIRC, the cost of the B-2, had they built the initial quantity they planned (120?) was twice the cost of a 747 (that had a much higher production rate).
How about we just nuke the camel jockeys and the chicoms and then we wouldn’t need them,
Their wings have all been broken off.
Bush flew the F-102A Delta Dagger. The F-106 Delta Dart is similar, a later version.
The F-104 was a Strafighter—basically a missile with stubby wings and a high tail.
LOL..A musician,eh?...that’s the first thing that came to my mind ,too.
Strafighter = Starfighter for the F-104.
I Googled XB-70 Valkryie photos, and this photo was one of them.
The chase plane pictured is a TB-58A trainer. This is the B-58 Hustler bomber, a delta wing bomber that came out in the late fifties, and the chase plane is the trainer version.
The B-58 was a large plane, and the B-70 made it look like a fighter!
You beat me by like nine seconds. Thanks for posting the photo with the caption. I’m not skilled in doing that.
I used to love the B-58 Hustler. One of my favorite models as a kid.
"How about [Americans] just nuke the camel jockeys and the chicoms and then [Americans] wouldn’t need them,"
Because that would be genocide and murder? And eventually another enemy would rise up anyway, and there would once again be a need for them.
(You probably weren't actually proposing a nuclear holocaust, but the comment was pretty stupid).
President Bush flew the F-102 Delta Dart in the TX ANG.
The chase plane appears to be a B-58 Hustler. the B-58 was used as chae for several of XB-70 flights IIRC
Regards
alfa6 ;>}
If they also made it a space delivery vehicle and replacement for the shuttle, this would be a real hit.
No, Bush flew the 106 in an ADC unit.
I don’t understand the need for a heavy bomber. Instead of paying 5 to 10 times the price of an F-22, build the extra F-22s instead. You end up with more flexibility and more bomb load.
102, my bad.
That depends on what threat needs bombing. The B-52 is a great old bird, with emphasis on OLD. She's as big as a barn, literally, on radar.
Let's see, what RCS did I use for the BUFF...well I think Big as a Barn, is close enough. Something like 1,000 sq. meters.
Which one was the widow-maker? I remember getting a copy of Jane’s Aircraft of the world in 1963 which showed the Valkyrie and the SR-71. I remember thinking how cool they were. Amazing how far ahead of the times those planes were. I grew up believing that we would be flying to London in 2 hours and make it to CA in just under two. Guess it is still ahead of its times.
My spelling has always been atrocious
Yea, and in 2001, instead of commercial liner flying to the space station, we got smaller versions of the 747 flying into the World Trade Center.
It's been 7 years since 2001. Still no liner to the space station, and the space station itself is pretty wimpy too.
I waited 33 years for 2001 come around. I am so bummed.
With today's budget, it's more like to be an MD-80 or a 767 with a connection via a puddle jumper (Saab maybe) from KC.
The F-102 was the widow maker. A very dangerous aircraft.
When that traitor John Kerry disparaged Bush’s service, the truth was George Bush was much more in harm’s way than Kerry.
Bush flew for six years. Kerry was out of the combat zone in 4.5 months. Five medals, and not a day in sick bay recuperating. Did you know he served in Vietnam?
We can still dream, El Gato.
Remember the Pan Am shuttle to the orbiting space station in 2001? We thought the future was on our doorstep.
So what? No air defense system in the world would last three days against our concerted effort to detroy it. Saddam's formidable air defenses were disposed of in a matter of hours. You could have flown a blimp over Bagdad on the morning of the invasion, as long as you stayed above the range of small arms and shoulder-launched MANPADS rockets.
No he flew the F-102, Delta Dagger. The 106 was a much upgraded 102, and about the same size. Still I think that chase plane is a 106, but it's hard to tell at that resolution.
Check post #29. The chase plane is a TB-58A Hustler trainer.
Range and logisitics/timing. If you had 10 F-22s, you'd have to schedule 10 refuelings each time the birds needed a drink, and they'd need one more times than a big bomber would. You'd spend a lot of time hooking up to and unhooking from the tankers. The booom probably wouldn't work, having been designed and built by Frenchmen, or French nationals anyway, possible of the Islamic persuasion.
Head out to Dayton Ohio and Wright-Patterson AFB US Air Force Museum and actually touch both. The other (only two built) Valkyrie and a (still leaking fuel), SR-71. Not to mention a Raptor.
Awesome trip...don’t go in May. Those crazy Ham radio operators take over the town.
I should have realized that wasn't a fighter. Still 102, 106 and 58 all made by Convair, and the family resemblece is pretty obvious.
The reason I should have realized that was not a fighter was that I've stood under, and touched the surviving XB-70, and a Hustler too I think. (and a YF-12 the "fighter" version of the SR-71). At the Air Force Museum, Wright Patterson AFB, OH. About 25 years ago though.
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.
