Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Bomber Program 'Underway' But Cloaked in Secrecy
AolDefense ^ | 2/24/2012 | Colin Clark

Posted on 02/24/2012 9:09:08 PM PST by U-238

America's new long-range bomber program is "underway," will involve somewhere between 80 and 100 planes and will be delivered sometime in the mid-2020's. "And that's about all we're saying," Air Force Secretary Mike Donley told reporters. It's been known for some time that the bombers will not fly alone but will be part of a family of systems that may include UAVs and other systems.

The really interesting part of all this is the secrecy and why it's so dark. It would seem to indicate several things: that the U.S. does not want potential competitors such as China or Russia to know how advanced a system will be delivered or exactly what capabilities it will involve; that the Air Force is still putting the larger architecture together, deciding which capabilities will be available.

The bomber will almost certainly include an unmanned capability, but no one has made a formal decision yet, an Air Force source told me. Many of the important subsystems have not yet been chosen, this source said. Even presuming that the $4 billion for the bomber in the 2013 budget submission spread over five years is supplemented by a few billion more in the black budget that is not much money to build 80 to 100 planes that will cost at least $550 million each. Even if that is flyaway cost -- which excludes research and development costs -- building a bomber able to penetrate denied airspace and fly thousands of miles to do it without refueling has never been cheap.

(Excerpt) Read more at defense.aol.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; Technical
KEYWORDS: aerospace; aviation; defensespending; mannedbomber; miltech; nationalsecurity; stealth; stealthbomber; uav; usaf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

1 posted on 02/24/2012 9:09:12 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: U-238

Don’t Tell Joe Biden...

Or for that matter...Obama


2 posted on 02/24/2012 9:11:44 PM PST by LtKerst (Lt Kerst)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Given that this is the Obama administration, I’m guessing that this “Bomber” involves lots of helium, kite string, and a large (recycled) rubber band.


3 posted on 02/24/2012 9:15:05 PM PST by Redcloak (Mitt Romney: Puttin' the "Country club" back in "Republican".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238
Already nobody can stop a B-1B.

But, we'll need to look to the future.

What I hear now days is the concept of "clusters". A big bomber with a few small craft in company. One of those craft will have a pilot, weapons officer and a "cluster controller" which can be backed up via Satellite comms or another "cluster" if in range. The bomber itself will be unmanned.

The other smaller vehicles will be "threat suppression"...similar to fighters, though they will not supplant Raptors etc.

Of course this could all be drunks talking and I could be a chronic liar.

4 posted on 02/24/2012 9:19:51 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

“will be delivered sometime in the mid-2020’s”
Hell, we won’t last that long with obama in charge.


5 posted on 02/24/2012 9:20:36 PM PST by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Loose lips sinks ships. Let’s hope 0bama’s people don’t blow this one like they did the aftermath of the OBL raid..


6 posted on 02/24/2012 9:22:49 PM PST by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

I guess the real important thing will be the ability to run them from Riyadh, the Emirates and Tehran.


7 posted on 02/24/2012 9:26:19 PM PST by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (nobody gives me warheads anyway))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238
will involve somewhere between 80 and 100 planes

Or maybe 9 if the price get out of control. We were once going to have 32 next generation Destroyers. Current projection: 3.

8 posted on 02/24/2012 9:26:43 PM PST by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Assuming that Obama doesn’t let Russia and China know what is beinf built.

Can the president ask for plans or anything?


9 posted on 02/24/2012 9:26:54 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Oh great.. Another military program for 0bama to unilaterally cancel simply because our adversaries want us to.


10 posted on 02/24/2012 9:27:41 PM PST by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

You are correct about those cost over runs.A comprehensive study of cost overrun published in the Journal of the American Planning Association in 2002 found that 9 out of ten construction projects had underestimated costs. Overruns of 50 to one hundred percent were common.Three types of explanation for cost overrun exist: technical, psychological, and political-economic.


11 posted on 02/24/2012 9:29:54 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LtKerst

Yep...”Oh boy, who can I sell our secrets to? My campaign coffers need an infusion.”


12 posted on 02/24/2012 9:29:55 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: U-238

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/February%202012/0212time.aspx


13 posted on 02/24/2012 9:30:35 PM PST by Josh Painter ("We intend to change Washington, not accomodate it." - Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Thanks Josh for the article. The designs for the proposed bombers are great.


14 posted on 02/24/2012 9:32:39 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

The USAF is planning to extend the B-52 life span until the year 2040. Its ridiculous to extend a bomber to that length of of time. They money the USAF is spending to extend the lifespan of the B-52 they could have a new bomber.


15 posted on 02/24/2012 9:35:22 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: U-238
...building a bomber able to penetrate denied airspace and fly thousands of miles to do it without refueling has never been cheap.

No problemo...Obama will refill with algae, or cow barf, or corn, or...does it matter? Obama will take care of the problem

16 posted on 02/24/2012 9:36:37 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Problem is, we found out how risky this UAW thing is over Iran.. I’d like to think it was a ‘Trojan horse’ mission but who knows..


17 posted on 02/24/2012 9:38:06 PM PST by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Provided civilization makes it to 2040 (doubtful), lasers are going to be a force to be reckoned with.


18 posted on 02/24/2012 9:43:18 PM PST by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs

The problem was that the Iranians used a GPS spoofing technique. There are GPS spoofing countermeasures out there which were not deployed by the CIA.Given the lack of attacker models, the proposed countermeasures
range from simple measures to constant monitoring of the channel.In consistency checks based on inertial sensors, cryptographic authentication, and discrimination based on signal strength, time of arrival, polarization, and angle-of-arrival are proposed


19 posted on 02/24/2012 9:43:35 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: U-238

They’ll run on algae.


20 posted on 02/24/2012 9:47:10 PM PST by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

“Already nobody can stop a B-1B.”

Wow, I looked it up, and apparently we fly 100 of these? I don’t hear much about them. Saw one at an airshow.


21 posted on 02/24/2012 9:50:26 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: U-238

I disagree my FRiend. The B-52 has more than paid for itself and can still do things that modern systems cannot.

I can think of nothing more fearful than a B-52 dropping in anger.


22 posted on 02/24/2012 9:58:05 PM PST by Steve Newton (And the Wolves will learn what we have shown before-We love our sheep we dogs of war. Vaughn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton

By the time the B-52 reasches 2040 the plane would be 100 years old. We need new planes because we have new adversaries(the Chinese) and old ones(Russia) who investing heavily in their militaries. These new bombers would probably to be exoatmospheric and reach their targets within 5-15 minutes.


23 posted on 02/24/2012 10:01:31 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton

You also have to take in account the ever improving air defense networks that are getting more sophisicated every year.


24 posted on 02/24/2012 10:05:35 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Ping.


25 posted on 02/24/2012 10:36:21 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

I like the Rods from God idea. No bomber needed. And think it’s a joke people believe we or ‘they’ follow any ‘non-militrazation of space” treaties.


26 posted on 02/24/2012 10:43:26 PM PST by Norm Lenhart (Normie: Wandering Druid, Cult of Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

I like the Rods From the Gods satellite. Its a great idea that never really championed.


27 posted on 02/24/2012 10:46:04 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

There is not really any “non-militairazation of space treaty”. The Soviet Union broke it the moment the ink dried.The programs just disguised itself into civilian programs


28 posted on 02/24/2012 10:49:24 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Exactly.


29 posted on 02/24/2012 10:52:15 PM PST by Norm Lenhart (Normie: Wandering Druid, Cult of Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: U-238

The tech is 1950s to make it reality. Modern comps could target it to insane precision. The only ‘cost’ is the payload getting a few dozen Tungsten phone poles into orbit.

Must be no profit in it for Defense Contractors.

But it sure would solve the Iran problem in 10 seconds with no fallout.


30 posted on 02/24/2012 10:56:51 PM PST by Norm Lenhart (Normie: Wandering Druid, Cult of Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Sounds like something from a Dale Brown novel.


31 posted on 02/24/2012 10:58:35 PM PST by chemicalman (The more support I see,the harder I want to work,and the more determined I am not to let folks down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Sice note I forgot to add from the railgun program:
“Velocitis Eradicum” - Speed destroys.


32 posted on 02/24/2012 10:58:51 PM PST by Norm Lenhart (Normie: Wandering Druid, Cult of Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: chemicalman

“Flight of the Old Dog”. Good Book and computer game.


33 posted on 02/24/2012 11:00:32 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Anybody here remember the B-58 (Hustler) the super sonic bomber that was supposed to release guided missles to where ever ? That concept is still around..Womder if ...kinda makes sence...Particularly used by small countries like Israel.. Where range is an important factor


34 posted on 02/24/2012 11:06:39 PM PST by mosesdapoet ("The best way to punish a country is let professors run it. Fredrick the Great p/p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Its nice to know that some projects are so deep that most presidents are never informed, especially one that will use it against America.


35 posted on 02/24/2012 11:07:27 PM PST by Eye of Unk (Liberals need not reply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238
By the time the B-52 reasches 2040 the plane would be 100 years old.

I was on the carrier when General Hap 'Doolittle' Schwarzenegger flew off a squadron of B-52s to bomb Toki Rio

36 posted on 02/24/2012 11:08:10 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in religion -Sup. Chalmers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mosesdapoet

It can make a difference.It was a fantastic plane.Unlike standard ejection seats of the period, a protective clamshell would enclose the seat and the control stick with an attached oxygen cylinder, allowing the pilot to continue to fly even “turtled up” and ready for immediate egress. If you want a good trivia question ,the B-58 was used in the original motion picture “FailSafe”in 1964.


37 posted on 02/24/2012 11:10:21 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: U-238
By the time the B-52 reasches 2040 the plane would be 100 years old. We need new planes because we have new adversaries(the Chinese) and old ones(Russia) who investing heavily in their militaries. These new bombers would probably to be exoatmospheric and reach their targets within 5-15 minutes.

I don't think we will have such planes for a long time to come. It takes a lot of energy and money to get them into space, just think, you'd need the equivalent of a system that was used to launch a Gemini capsule using a Titan II missile. Also, when you get into space, the re-entry is rough as well. Basically. you'd have a new version of the Space Shuttle. Bombers need to be able to take off within a few minutes, something like this cannot be ready in that time although I do say it could be used for a first strike perhaps.

Really, when you think about it, airplane performance reached a plateau around 1960, an F-4 is just as fast and can do the same job as an F-22. True, the electronics and stealth have evolved further but again, you run into cost and logistics and IMHO, stealth is way overrated, it can be picked up by continuous wave radar which is very low tech, like the Chain Home system the UK had in WWII. There will be a point that even our adversaries will realize that logistics and costs will come into play as well, you can only afford so many SU-30's.

The B-52 will be around for a long time to come and I'm sure even the TU-95 Bear will be there too.
38 posted on 02/24/2012 11:11:26 PM PST by Nowhere Man (Send Obama back to the ghetto, November 6th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

It takes 12 hours for the B-52 to reach their targets inside Russia. Do you think with the ever improving air defenses and fighter defenses they can reach their targets?


39 posted on 02/24/2012 11:13:42 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: U-238

One of his newer books, “Executive Intent”, has the Mjolnir garages in orbit and they release tungsen rods. He has a great series of books.


40 posted on 02/24/2012 11:14:03 PM PST by chemicalman (The more support I see,the harder I want to work,and the more determined I am not to let folks down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: chemicalman

I like his books.I will have to read that one. Thanks for the tip

:)


41 posted on 02/24/2012 11:14:56 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

The B-52 was designed for a different era. Now its time to mmove over and let an advanced bomber take its place.


42 posted on 02/24/2012 11:21:00 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Project Thor


43 posted on 02/24/2012 11:36:54 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: U-238

One really has to wonder. It’s such a simple and effective idea, why wouldn’t we have done it? Sure can’t be that hard to keep hidden. Rocket launches happen all the time. No spectacular tech to leak out. No real hyper-complex system to maintain outside fuel for the sat - and we repair/refuel them regularly. Just a targeting system computer and a bunch of heavy metal.

I’d be more apt to think it’s been up there since the 60s and that all the rest has been no more than a dog and pony show to hide the fact that we can hit anything, anywhere at damn near any reasonable depth.

...And that if we used it on Iran, then the cat’s outta the bag. But if we have it and don’t....

Interesting thing to ponder.


44 posted on 02/25/2012 12:03:03 AM PST by Norm Lenhart (Normie: Wandering Druid, Cult of Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Attack satellites with or without lasers. But then you’ve got the satellite-killer satellites or other threats to satellites. Oh hell, why not just surrender. LOL


45 posted on 02/25/2012 12:19:26 AM PST by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Perhaps the XB-37 (mini space plane) is laying the groundwork. Also, there was another thread here about an alleged ‘airstrike’ on an Iranian facility (Isfahan?) a few months back.


46 posted on 02/25/2012 12:29:17 AM PST by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Anticipated a “smart” meaning an intelliegent reply which may expalain the discontinaunce.. But did a wise and friendly country buy off a few for their evaluation ? WILL will soon find out . I hope that wss the case ...Because they know now to use our discards....Fact is if I ever won the lottery I I could get one but the bay would be filled with blondss, redheads and brunnets........
I thimk they IDAF have a couple and ....pooof at LEAST HOPE SO ....


47 posted on 02/25/2012 12:43:32 AM PST by mosesdapoet ("The best way to punish a country is let professors run it. Fredrick the Great p/p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs

I’d thought of that at the time but wondered if there was anything ‘under’ that place. In 100 years or so we ‘might’ learn the truth of what really happened there, but considering the ineptitude of the average Iranian fanatic, I be just as apt to think some idiot was smoking around a liquid Oxygen transfer operation.

Everything I’ve read on the RFG stuff says it’s like a small tactical nuke when it hits and that wasn’t that big a bang...or so we were told....

Dunno, but I still hope we really do have it.


48 posted on 02/25/2012 1:04:05 AM PST by Norm Lenhart (Normie: Wandering Druid, Cult of Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: U-238

“I like his books.I will have to read that one. “

Check out Dan Simmons. “Flashback.”


49 posted on 02/25/2012 1:31:06 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Already nobody can stop a B-1B.

I hope you mean the B-2. The B-1B is not much more survivable than a B-52.

50 posted on 02/25/2012 1:42:28 AM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson