If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Henry J Cobb wrote:
What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers? Build new ones, most likely. The Air Force has already said it plans a new bomber development program, although they sdon't use the word bomber for various reasons. But the need is not pressing, since the current fleets will run until the 2030s at least. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message hlink.net... Henry J Cobb wrote: What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers? Build new ones, most likely. The Air Force has already said it plans a new bomber development program, although they sdon't use the word bomber for various reasons. But the need is not pressing, since the current fleets will run until the 2030s at least. Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan. Brooks -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan. There are some hints out there. http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingsta...-03bolkcom.pdf What characteristics should a next-generation bomber have? Among the factors to be considered are range, payload, speed, unit cost, stealth, and whether the aircraft will be manned or unmanned. Reportedly, Air Combat Command (ACC) is examining four options: • The B-3: an upgraded version of the B-2 that has greater payload and range along with better stealth and communications. • Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV): An aircraft that would operate in the upper atmosphere at “hypersonic” speeds (Mach 12). It would be virtually invulnerable to enemy defenses because of its speed and altitude and could reach east Asia from the continental United States in less than two hours. • A high-altitude, low-cost unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) with a range of 17,000 nautical miles and a payload of 4,000 lbs. • A lower-flying, stealthy UCAV. -HJC |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingsta...-03bolkcom.pdf
I've got a question about the chart on page 8 of this report that compares the F-35 and F/A-22 as bombers. Can the F-35 really carry three times the payload of the F/A-22 for a longer distance? -HJC |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Henry J Cobb wrote:
What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers? Maybe when the last B-52 is flown to the boneyard the nations of the world will live in peace and harmony? I thought Peace was their Profession? I'd seen that sign up, but I always liked the quote I heard about a speech given by a commander, whose name I didn't recall even just after hearing the story... "Peace is not our profession. War is our profession. Peace is our product..." Mike |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Henry J Cobb wrote:
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingsta...8thcongress/04 -03-03bolkcom.pdf I've got a question about the chart on page 8 of this report that compares the F-35 and F/A-22 as bombers. Can the F-35 really carry three times the payload of the F/A-22 for a longer distance? Those numbers are pretty much non-comparable, I fear. The 633 mile figure is the usual radius quoted for the F-35A, but that's with internal loads only. The 14,600 pound payload for the F-35 is max external load, which seriously changes combat radius. The F/A-22's combat radius figure is the one usually quoted for air-to-air missions (despite the caption). For air-to-air it apparently includes some significant but unspecified time on station in the CAP mission. The max load cited is probably external, but not terribly helpful as that plane that is not configured to carry heavy external warloads. Etc. In short, that table is basically worthless. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are
actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan. Congress is leaning on the Air Force to get their (our) butts in gear. Congress is pushing this not to shorten the projected BUFF lifespan (projected to 2038, beyond the B-1B), but simply to get the Air Force moving. Between 2018 and 2038 we will retire 97% of our existing bombers, I think congress is concerned that the Air Force will be forced into "crisis acquisition" if they (us) don't get moving *now*. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
I thought Peace was their Profession?
I'd seen that sign up, but I always liked the quote I heard about a speech given by a commander, whose name I didn't recall even just after hearing the story... "Peace is not our profession. War is our profession. Peace is our product..." I've seen and heard the more cynical (yet comical) "Peace is our profession, war is our hobby" BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" wrote
Congress is leaning on the Air Force to get their (our) butts in gear. Congress is pushing this not to shorten the projected BUFF lifespan (projected to 2038, beyond the B-1B), but simply to get the Air Force moving. Between 2018 and 2038 we will retire 97% of our existing bombers, I think congress is concerned that the Air Force will be forced into "crisis acquisition" if they (us) don't get moving *now*. I'd like to see two future bombers. The first would be a long range bomber that never crosses the FEBA (stand-off) and just drops cruise missiles from the Med, Sea of China, etc. I picture a C-17 derivative. The second bomber should be stealthy, and able to loiter. This bomber will do what the B-1, B-2, and B-52 do now (at least those that cross the FEBA). It should have a C-17 cockpit design, with the addition of a receive-only JTIDS terminal. Probably a B-2 radar to do bombing under heavy ECM. I don't think the B-2 is going to last another 10 years. It is already falling apart, and Northrop-Grumman is basically re-manufacturing them on a monthly basis. The USAF who is supposed to be maintaining it, are basically unable to keep-up with the non-TO engineering changes. "All I want to know, is why are the prisoners at Gitmo still alive?"--Dick Cheney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |