Skip to comments.New Bomber Program 'Underway' But Cloaked in Secrecy
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 ...
I like his books.I will have to read that one. Thanks for the tip
The B-52 was designed for a different era. Now its time to mmove over and let an advanced bomber take its place.
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.
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
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.
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 ....
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.
“I like his books.I will have to read that one. “
Check out Dan Simmons. “Flashback.”
I hope you mean the B-2. The B-1B is not much more survivable than a B-52.
And they would make dandy targets for the Chinese anti-sat missiles ...
True. But our GPS sats are a far more important military target. An RFG sat they can track and kill at will saving them a few hits on their facilities. Drop out GPS net and we’re toast. Why waste a good tactical advantage by taking out an RFG that is minimal threat unless its parked over Hong Kong?
Will be algae powered?
I think 9 is optimisitic. Maybe the AF will get to keep the two prototypes. Given its history over the last 25 years, how can any contractor believe military claims about how many A/C will be acquired?
The B52 was an amazing design, but the USAF is crazy if they think it will serve until 2040. The B52 was first flown in 1952. Having a 90 (!!!) year old aircraft in 2040 would be the equivalent to having the USAF flying biplanes from the 1920's as front line bombers today.
Umm...no. (Being polite here.)