bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 3,236
- Reaction score
- 2,606
Do you guys think that 2025 is doable?
bring_it_on said:Do you guys think that 2025 is doable?
Steve Pace said:I feel there's no need of a 'new' bomber since the U.S. has numerous fighters that are fully capable of 'bombing' any adversary. Moreover, the U.S. has other ways to deliver 'bombs' such as cruise missiles and even transport aircraft. Witness C-130s delivering MOABs. Not to mention by way of unoccupied aircraft. -SP
Steve Pace said:I feel there's no need of a 'new' bomber since the U.S. has numerous fighters that are fully capable of 'bombing' any adversary. Moreover, the U.S. has other ways to deliver 'bombs' such as cruise missiles and even transport aircraft. Witness C-130s delivering MOABs. Not to mention by way of unoccupied aircraft. -SP
Tough targets in Serbian territory could only be reached by the B-2 bomber, which made its combat debut by flying directly from its base in Missouri. The B-2 successfully struck heavily defended fixed targets and mobile targets such as an SA-3.
Afghanistan presented another showcase for range and payload. B-1s and B-52Hs ended up dropping about 70 percent of the total tonnage during the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom in the fall of 2001.
...
A new appreciation for the bombers emerged during the ongoing operations when B-52Hs and B-1s proved the value of turning range into loiter time, allowing the aircraft to stay overhead with large weapons loads to support varied ground operations.
On missions in 2004 and 2005, it was common for aircraft to drop just one weapon, or none at all. By the fall of 2006, strikes increased as larger formations of Taliban fighters emerged in Afghanistan. One B-1 crew told of releasing eight 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions, plus six 500-pound bombs, on a single mission that fall.
...
There’s another wrinkle. The days of fighters (or bombers, or unmanned systems) operating alone are over. In 21st century scenarios, all these platforms will need to share information and achieve a tactical dependence to get the job done. Heavily defended airspace will present challenges that call for platforms to work together in new ways.
JFC Fuller said:there is no need to be low except to make a point.
Abraham Gubler said:JFC Fuller said:there is no need to be low except to make a point.
And the B-1 does that far better than any other aircraft.
You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.George Allegrezza said:Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html
Moose said:You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.George Allegrezza said:Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html
FighterJock said:Moose said:You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.George Allegrezza said:Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html
Only one issue here where does that leave Northrop-Grumman?
sferrin said:FighterJock said:Moose said:You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.George Allegrezza said:Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html
Only one issue here where does that leave Northrop-Grumman?
Thought they were competitors. LM/Boeing on one side and NG on the other. ???
edit:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_25_2013_p0-630684.xml
"Boeings leadership role in the program confirms reports that the companys longbut largely unadvertisedwork in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."
If you're looking for a Hypersonic platform, you're gonna be disappointed.bobbymike said:sferrin said:FighterJock said:Moose said:You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.George Allegrezza said:Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html
Only one issue here where does that leave Northrop-Grumman?
Thought they were competitors. LM/Boeing on one side and NG on the other. ???
edit:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_25_2013_p0-630684.xml
"Boeing’s leadership role in the program confirms reports that the company’s long—but largely unadvertised—work in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."
LRS-B, preliminary work on SSBN(X) if they announce a new ICBM and nuke warhead it's like Christmas arrived early for me.
But on a serious note with 20 years of technology advancement since the B-2A are we 'just' going to get a new VLO subsonic bomber or something more exotic? With the cost pegged at $550 million each is that possible?
No I am not that optimistic BUT defensive DEW would be great. B)Moose said:If you're looking for a Hypersonic platform, you're gonna be disappointed.bobbymike said:sferrin said:FighterJock said:Moose said:You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.George Allegrezza said:Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html
Only one issue here where does that leave Northrop-Grumman?
Thought they were competitors. LM/Boeing on one side and NG on the other. ???
edit:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_25_2013_p0-630684.xml
"Boeings leadership role in the program confirms reports that the companys longbut largely unadvertisedwork in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."
LRS-B, preliminary work on SSBN(X) if they announce a new ICBM and nuke warhead it's like Christmas arrived early for me.
But on a serious note with 20 years of technology advancement since the B-2A are we 'just' going to get a new VLO subsonic bomber or something more exotic? With the cost pegged at $550 million each is that possible?
sferrin said:"Boeing’s leadership role in the program confirms reports that the company’s long—but largely unadvertised—work in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."
sublight is back said:sferrin said:"Boeing’s leadership role in the program confirms reports that the company’s long—but largely unadvertised—work in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."
Where are all these really low RCS Boeing designs???
sublight is back said:Where are all these really low RCS Boeing designs???
Triton said:Boeing and Lockheed Martin form LRS-B Team:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_04_2013_p22-631732.xml&p=1
antigravite said:BTW, has the 787 battery issue bee solved yet?
antigravite said:Triton said:Boeing and Lockheed Martin form LRS-B Team:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_04_2013_p22-631732.xml&p=1
Best choice ever. The 787 experience was is good incentive to team up with a strong partner.
Lockheed might be more than helpful to kinda fix battery issues, windshield issues.
BTW, has the 787 battery issue bee solved yet?
A.
F-14D said:antigravite said:Triton said:Boeing and Lockheed Martin form LRS-B Team:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_04_2013_p22-631732.xml&p=1
Best choice ever. The 787 experience was is good incentive to team up with a strong partner.
Lockheed might be more than helpful to kinda fix battery issues, windshield issues.
BTW, has the 787 battery issue bee solved yet?
A.
I'd say the 787 experience was more an incentive to not outsource everything and do engineering on the cheap. Boeing was more than capable of doing the whole 787 design and build, but the financial wizards in Chicago thought this would be a lower cost way.
Wonder if they've learned anything.
George Allegrezza said:F-14D said:I'd say the 787 experience was more an incentive to not outsource everything and do engineering on the cheap. Boeing was more than capable of doing the whole 787 design and build, but the financial wizards in Chicago thought this would be a lower cost way.
Wonder if they've learned anything.
In fact, they have. They've been quoted as saying they outsourced too much on the 787 and aren't going to make the same mistakes on the 777X. That's why they're making a big deal out of the search for the final assembly site, because they may choose to put the wing manufacturing site in the same place. They are serious about doing the wings in-house, it appears.
bobbymike said:"The Air Force in 2010 projected it would cost $550 million to manufacture each of the 100 envisioned new long-range strike bombers.
"However, when the expense of research and development is factored in, the cost for each nuclear-weapons capable aircraft rises up to $810 million each, measured in 2013 dollars, according to estimates from three defense specialists."
aim9xray said:bobbymike said:"The Air Force in 2010 projected it would cost $550 million to manufacture each of the 100 envisioned new long-range strike bombers.
"However, when the expense of research and development is factored in, the cost for each nuclear-weapons capable aircraft rises up to $810 million each, measured in 2013 dollars, according to estimates from three defense specialists."
Apples, meet oranges.
*facepalm*
flateric said:topic becoming boring w/out some pics