| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| The B-3 Looks Like The B-2 |
| 2008-09-23 |
| The B-3 has been seen. The U.S. Air Force is working on a replacement for its current force of heavy bombers (20 B-2s, 67 B-1s and 76 B-52s). Models of what the new bomber might look like have been shown, and the "B-3" (officially the NGB, or New Generation Bomber) looks like the B-2. There are two proposals (from Northrop Grumman and Boeing). Both look like the B-2. For the Northrop Grumman proposal, the main difference is that the stubby wings are "cranked" (moved forward a bit, rather than continuing in a straight line from the body of the aircraft). These derivative designs are apparently favored because the air force knows it is unlikely to get the money for a radical (and expensive) new design. There is also talk of building it so it can operate with, or without, a crew. The air force hopes to get the B-3 into service in ten years. That may be possible, given that the air force has several billion dollars of its money currently invested in "black" (secret) aircraft programs. The B-3 spec calls for a smaller and stealthier aircraft that carries a ten ton bomb load (less than half what current heavy bombers haul). This is in recognition of the effectiveness of smart bombs, which are more than a hundred times more effective than unguided bombs. Meanwhile, the most cost-effective bombers continue to be the half century old B-52s, simply because they are cheaper to operate. The well maintained B-52s are quite sturdy and have, on average, only 16,000 flying hours on them. The air force estimates that the B-52s won't become un-maintainable until they reach 28,000 flight hours. Thus these aircraft could serve another 20 or more years. The B-1 and B-2 were meant to provide a high tech (and much more expensive) replacement for the B-52, but the end of the Cold War made that impractical. The kinds of anti-aircraft threats the B-1 and B-2 were designed to deal with never materialized. This left the B-52 as the most cost effective way to deliver bombs. The B-1s and B-2s are getting some of the same weapons carrying and communications upgrades as the B-52, if only because these more modern aircraft provide a more expensive backup for the B-52. Of the 744 B-52s built, only 94 are still fit for service. Nearly fifty have already been donated to museums (including one in Australia and one in South Korea.) Because of the Russia-U.S. START treaty, hundreds of B-52s in the "bone yard" were stripped of any useful equipment in the 1990s, and, since then, chopped up for scrap. This was all done out in the open, so that Russian spy satellites could confirm it. In the last half century, the air force has developed six heavy bombers (the 240 ton B-52 in 1955, the 74 ton B-58 in 1960, the 47 ton FB-111 in 1969, the 260 ton B-70 in the 1960s, the 236 ton B-1 in 1985, and the 181 ton B-2 in 1992.) All of these were developed primarily to deliver nuclear weapons (bombs or missiles), but have proved more useful dropping non-nuclear bombs. Only the B-70 was cancelled before being deployed. The B-1 was delayed and almost cancelled, but proved that the air force would do anything to keep the heavy bombers coming. The air force generals are now asking the aircraft designers for a subsonic, long range heavy bomber that could operate with, or without, a crew. Since the B-2 requires only a two pilots, and many commercial airliners have flight control equipment that, with a little tweaking, could eliminate the pilots altogether, the idea of heavy bomber UAV is well within the capabilities of current technology. The way this is going, it's likely that the next heavy bomber will be smaller (60-100 tons) subsonic, stealthy, uninhabited and familiar looking. And if rumors from the world of "black projects" are any indication, it is already under construction. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #6 If they are going to make a manned bomber, they need to re-make the equivalent to the FB-111, but with stealth and better EW/Avionics and speed (supercruise). The Pig (officially, "Aardvark") was a helluva a penetration bomber, as was the EW version, the Raven. We still havent gotten anything as good as the raven for the USAF. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-09-23 21:58 |
| #5 Think TV's "PARANORMAL STATE", where PENN STATE's PARANORMAL RESEARCH SOCIETY engages in hunting Ghostsma dother strange phenomenon. AS PER TV, PSU PCORRECTLY SEARCHES FOR "FUN" GHOSTS, ETAL. - OUTSIDE OF TV, PSU ACTIVELY BUT COVERTLY COLLUDES WID GOES/GGOS + NGOS IN ROUTINE, OFTEN NON-CONSENSUAL PYWAR, ETC. EXPERIMENTATION AND OTHER ON ITS STUDENTS + AMER CITIZENS, where NEITEHR STUDENTS NOR PARENTS, ETC ARE TOLD. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-09-23 20:53 |
| #4 No surprise here - the USAF-DOD in time will deploy those [SUPER]AURORA-styled andor similar ADVANCED TRIANGULAR AEROSPACE CRAFTS WE SEE ON "UFO FILES" + AREA 51. We're just "GOING THRU THE MOTIONS" at this time. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-09-23 20:46 |
| #3 Someone should start towing drones up to altitude like gliders . |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-09-23 16:30 |
| #2 The truth of the matter is that the AF should buy some inexpensive, low tech, low maintenance "cargo bombers", that are not stealthy or fast or maneuverable, and don't gobble fuel. Even drones would work. Not "combat" aircraft, but "combat support" aircraft. All they do is take off, fly a programmed pattern, drop SDBs (8 to a ton) on request, and land. Since most fuel is burned getting up to altitude, it might even be worth it to alternatively have them airship hoisted. At a high altitude, it turns on its engines to make sure everything is working, then is detached from the airship in a nose dive, accelerating to full power. Even if the engines suddenly fail, it just moves by a glide pattern down to the landing strip. The bottom line is that aircraft like this can provide 24/7 support at maybe a tenth of the cost of a B-52, which itself is a lot cheaper than the newer bombers. Boring, dull and efficient. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-09-23 14:35 |
| #1 How far ahead is the US in these technologies? Is there anyway to pause and save money without losing the tech in the process? |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-09-23 14:26 |