Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Air Force Bomber Redux...

A-12-Avenger-web.jpg

The next bomber in the US Air Force inventory should be stealthy and subsonic. It should travel 2,000-nautical miles to its target and have enough fuel on board to get home. It should carry at least 28 500-pound bombs. And (surprise!) there should be a human pilot on board.

These are the conclusions of the Air Force's recently completed analysis of alternatives for a next-generation bomber to be fielded around 2018.

This is supposed to be a new thing, of course, but those specifications seem strangely familiar.

Anyone remember the A-12 Avenger II? It, too, was a stealthy, subsonic, manned aircraft that blurred the boundary between an attack aircraft and a bomber.

Dick Cheney cancelled the A-12 program on 7 January 1991, just as the bombs started to fall on Baghdad during Operation Desert Storm.

True, the A-12 was conceived as a carrier-based land attack aircraft, but it wasn't entirely a Navy bird. According to our dog-eared copy of Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1991-92, a "USAF A-12" had been proposed as a replacement for the F-111.

The F-111 was designed to carry 24 500-pound bombs and travel 1,800 miles, and it's not unfair to think the proposed USAF variant of the super-secret A-12 would have been very similar in capability.

So, congratulations, taxpayers: Watch the Air Force spend billions of dollars over the next decade for an aircraft that General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas very nearly delivered to the navy and the air force 15 years ago.

Christian adds:

The Washington Post reported today the law suit between the government, General Dynamics and Boeing Co. that festered for years over the cancellation of the A-12 program has been adjudicated in favor of the government’s position.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims upheld the government's 1991 decision to terminate the companies' contract for the A-12 radar-evading plane, General Dynamics and Boeing said.

The "contracting officer could have concluded that McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics had 'no reasonable likelihood' of delivering the aircraft on time as measured by the schedule," Judge Robert H. Hodges wrote in the decision. McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997. "We must again uphold the Government's default termination…"

…The debate dates to the eve of the Persian Gulf War in January 1991 when Dick Cheney, who was defense secretary, canceled the program, which was over budget and behind schedule. The Pentagon demanded return of the $1.3 billion it had invested in the plane, and General Dynamics sued, arguing that the real reason for the cancellation was that the Pentagon needed money for the war. No A-12s were ever built.

The case has been in the courts for years and became a symbol for the difficulty of canceling a weapons program. In 2002, the Navy told General Dynamics and Boeing to pay $2.3 billion to settle the case, which the companies refused to do. That demand included $1 billion in interest.

-- Stephen Trimble

Comments

Ugg Boots
Ugg Boot
Ugg Boots Sale
Uggs
Ugg Cardy
Ugg Cardy Boot
Ugg Cardy Boots
Ugg Crochet Boot
Ugg Crochet Boots
Crochet Boots
Ugg Mini Boots
Ugg Mini Boot
Classic Mini Boots
Ugg Classic Short Boots
Ugg Classic Short Boot
Classic Short Boots
Ugg Classic Tall Boots
Ugg Classic Tall Boot
Classic Tall Boots
Ugg Nightfall Boots
Ugg Nightfall Boot
Nightfall Boots
Ugg Sundance Boots
Ugg Sundance Boot
Sundance Boots
Ugg Ultra Short Boots
Ugg Ultra Short Boot
Ultra Short Boots
Ugg Ultra Tall Boots
Ugg Ultra Tall Boot
Ultra Tall Boots
Ugg Keychains
Ugg Insoles

Posted by: vivian at July 2, 2009 10:49 PM


dunk sb shoes

Posted by: jian at June 18, 2009 01:47 AM


tiffany jewerly

Posted by: angle at June 17, 2009 10:31 PM


adidas shoes

Posted by: kkj at June 16, 2009 08:14 PM


nike dunks

Posted by: jian at June 15, 2009 02:17 AM


nike designer shoes

Posted by: jian at June 14, 2009 08:37 PM


paul smith
buy paul smith
paul smith store
paul smith shop
paul smith outlet
paul smith online store
paul smith UK
paul smith authentic
paul smith sale
paul smith men's wear
paul smith women's wear
paul smith accessories
paul smith collections
buy paul smith shoes
buy paul smith trainers
cheap paul smith shoes
cheap paul smith trainers
paul smith shoes
paul smith trainers
authentic paul smith shoes
authentic paul smith trainers
Paul Smith Canvas Holdall bags
paul smith bags
paul smith bag
Paul Smith Blonde Naked Lady Belt
buy paul smith belt
paul smith belt
paul smith belts
paul smith clothing
paul smith clothes
buy paul smith t-shirt
paul smith men's tshirt
paul smith ps t-shirt
paul smith polo
paul smith clothes
buy paul smith cufflinks
paul smith cufflinks
paul smith credit card wallet
paul smith leather wallets
buy paul smith wallet
buy paul smith wallets
cheap paul smith mens' wallet
paul smith mini wallet
paul smith naked lady wallet
paul smith striped wallet
paul smith wallets
paul smith women's wallet
paul smith sweater
cheap paul smith sweaters
authentic paul smith sweater
buy paul smith sweaters
genuine paul smith sweater
paul smith flip flop
buy paul smith flip flop
authentic paul smith flip flop
paul smith scarves
buy paul smith scarves
authentic paul smith scarves
paul smith notebooks
paul smith neckties
paul smith underwears

Posted by: http://www.paulsmithsale.co.uk/ at June 13, 2009 07:25 AM


timberland boots

Posted by: jian at June 13, 2009 12:17 AM



ugg boots
nike designer shoes

Posted by: jian at June 11, 2009 03:43 AM


nike air max
nike shox
nike dunk sb
puma shoes
coach shoes

Posted by: jian at June 6, 2009 03:02 AM


nike air max
nike shox
nike dunk sb
puma shoes
coach shoes

Posted by: jian at June 6, 2009 03:01 AM


nike store,air max shoes,dunk sb shoes,nike shox shoes

Posted by: fgs at June 5, 2009 08:00 PM


nike shox
nike shox fusion
nike shox nz
nike shox R2
nike shox R4
nike shox TZ
women's nike shox R5
nike shox Turb
 

Posted by: http://www.kicksadidas.com at May 25, 2009 12:04 PM


Links of London
Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Charm
Links of London Necklace
Links of London Bracelets
Links of London Earrings
Links of London Rings
Designer from UK
Diamond
Gold&Silver
Links Jewelry
Links Necklace
Links Charm
Links Earrings
Links Rings

Posted by: http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk at May 20, 2009 09:30 PM


Paul Smith
Paul Smith Sale
cheap paul smith wallets
buy paul smith wallet
paul smith leather wallets
Paul smith men's wallet
paul smith women's wallets
Paul Smith Wallets
Paul Smith Bags
Paul Smith Necktie
Paul Smith Notebook
Paul Smith Belts
Paul Smith Shoes
Paul Smith Trainers
Paul Smith Cufflinks
Paul Smith">Paul Smith T-shirts
buy paul smith belt
Paul Smith Authentic
paul smith belt
paul smith belts
black leather suit belt
Paul Smith Blonde Naked Lady Belt
trainers uk
trainers shop
trainers reviews
health trainer
trainers sale
new trainers
comfortable Trainer

Posted by: http://www.paulsmithsale.co.uk at May 15, 2009 03:51 AM


Let me begin my remarks by establishing my background. I am a retired Air Force officer with just shy of 2000 hours as a B-52 Radar Navigator (bombardier). I also served as Assistant Editor of The Air University Review and Deputy Director of Curriculum at Squadron Officer School. Bomber doctrine has been a real, close-up concern for most of my adult life, so what I write here is more than just a casual opinion.

A manned long-range bomber is and will be a necessary part of successful military operations for the forseeable future. Think of a bomber as long-range artillery that can devastate enemy operations and logistics with great precision hundreds of miles behind the front, or in his homeland. While we are currently involved in a guerilla battle, to assume there is no great war in the future would be naive.

That said, there are variables that may or may not be necessary.
Speed is important because it limits exposure to enemy defenses, but speed brings tradeoffs. Greater speed means increased fuel consumption and, therefore, smaller weapon loads and shorter range. Supersonic speeds dictate either smaller airframe design (e.g., B-58, FB-111) or exotic material content (e.g., YF-12, SR-71). Also, as enemy defenses become more sophisticated, speed alone loses much of its edge.

Stealthiness provides a marginal way to defeat enemy electronic defenses, but only until those defenses catch up technologically. It also is expensive, requiring cutting-edge (e.g., radar-absorbing) materials and radical airframe design; the latter makes flight characteristics very unstable and makes computerized control systems essential.

The most complex, and least valued component of modern bomber design is the crew. The more an aircraft depends on computers for threat assessment, weapon delivery, and egress, the more limited it becomes. In 1981, a flight of 6, 25-year-old B-52Gs (with 30-year-old defensive and weapons delivery systems) successfully struck 48 simulated targets at Red Flag, despite the state of the art F-15 and F-5 aggressors searching frantically for them. The bombers were never located because human electronic warfare officers were operating jammers and defensive systems in unpredictable ways. (I know this because I was on the lead bomber and was in the subsequent debriefing at Nellis AFB).

The ability to apply creativity and ingenuity to a situation requires a human crew. Computers cannot create. Regardless whether the government goes with speed or stealth, the minimum requirement for a long-range bomber is a live crew!

Posted by: Gary Loftis at April 30, 2009 12:43 PM


Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
rolex replica-
rolex replica watches-
best replica watches-
watches-
diamond watches-
replica watches-
rolex watches-
watches online-
timex watches-
ladies watch-
luxury watch-
wrist watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
ladies watch-
men's watch-
wrist watches-
replica watches-
fine watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
replica rolex watches-
rolex watch-

Posted by: luxury watch at April 21, 2009 03:08 AM


Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
rolex replica-
rolex replica watches-
best replica watches-
watches-
diamond watches-
replica watches-
rolex watches-
watches online-
timex watches-
ladies watch-
luxury watch-
wrist watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
ladies watch-
men's watch-
wrist watches-
replica watches-
fine watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
replica rolex watches-
rolex watch-

Posted by: luxury watch at April 21, 2009 03:07 AM


Finally a carrier based aircraft in the class of a F111. Just like the F111 was originally intended.

Somebody inform Australia in a hurry

Posted by: Jailcitykid at September 19, 2008 05:47 AM


nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 02:08 AM


The A-12 was cancelled, in a nutshell, because the technology required to make it work was too much of a stretch to achieve on a cost effective basis in 1991. The notion that the same thing might be less challenging technologically sixteen years later, after a period of revolutionary advances in the science and implementation of aircraft with new materials, advanced avionics, aerodynamic innovations, and stealth technology, is hardly a stretch.

In other words, it is entirely possible that Cheney, that bastard that he is, may have made the right decision for 1991, and that somebody else may be making the right decision in basically reinventing the A-12 now.

The technology has arrived, although I seriously doubt that the mission that its successor is designed to carry out (medium range, medium weight bombing runs) really ought to be a priority for the Air Force. The Air Force has the F-15E, F-16, F-35A, F-117, and A-10 for short range bombing missions. It has the B-52, B-1 and B-2 for long range bombing missions.

It isn't as if the long range bomber fleet is so overtaxed that it can't handle a medium range, medium payload run from time to time. There is slack in the system to allow the big guys to run those kinds of missions.

For my druthers, I'd rather see a B-52 successor, perhaps modeled on a Boeing 747 or 737, than a successor to the F-111 and the A-12. If the medim range bombing mission were so vital, we wouldn't have retired the F-111 long before any replacement was in place.

Posted by: ohwilleke at September 9, 2007 04:08 AM


Brian H - you know what countries I'm talking about...Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, syria, etc...basically a bunch of middle eastern countries.

Posted by: murc at May 6, 2007 10:57 PM


Subsonic only sounds good to the bean-counters cause it costs less money. But I bet anyone that the Air Force would love supersonic. That whole talk about prompt global strike can't be just a lot of hot air.

Posted by: JH at May 6, 2007 02:43 PM


murc;
I'm very concerned about these "rouge" nations. Are they the ones that go red when we're not looking? Or the ones that give us roguish looks?

Just confused, and blushing.

Posted by: Brian H at May 6, 2007 12:21 PM


When is the airforce going to realise that manned bombers are not the way to go if you are looking for endurance? If they don't then Israel (http://www.janes.com/press/articles/pc060307_1.shtml) or worse France will have the capability sooner. Countries with smaller defense budgets could attain an edge in this area because of smarter investment choices.

Posted by: africanmuffia at May 6, 2007 12:00 PM


I like the YF-23 for a lot of reasons, but payload and range divided by payload aren't two of them. Speed does not always equal survivability: these days very often Go Fast = Die Sooner.
Counterintuitively perhaps, but also the truth is Mach 1-2 'speed' buys you only a fractional edge in time-to-target that can be overcome through proper planning or by tasking less numerous specialized systems for the small aimpoint sets that REALLY need servicing 'yesterday'. Alas, this small speed advantage is paid for with GREAT penalties in payload, range (obvious basic aerodynamics), and tanker support (less obvious perhaps?)...which no doubt is why the findings of the AF analysis came out with a high subsonic answer.

I question the 'range' outcome of the analysis. There seems to be a smidgen of unwarranted optimism as to secure forward basing opportunities.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at May 5, 2007 12:51 AM


A stretched YF-23, with a lowered need for high speed, would be an exceptionally easy answer to this need. For that matter, an expanded, manned version of one of the A-12 derivatives now being built as UAVs, would be another - if ironic - possibility.

The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have pointed out one error of the "go-fast" gang: No matter how many F-22s, F-35s and B-2s you buy, you will still always have a requirement for a less-flashy, durable and dependable "bomb truck" to put a concentrated mass of iron on some tactical targets.

Any "stealthy" Canberras waiting in the wings?

Posted by: Paul Zimmerli at May 4, 2007 09:50 PM


The USAF keeps searching for the holy grail of bombers, a bomber with long range, big pay-load, low radar cross-section, capable of being used as a fighter and it won't ever happen.

I predict that within 10-20 years that airborne lasers (on both sides) will create such a hostile air environment that manned aircraft will have a short lifetime in the combat arena and that small, stealthy, fast RPV will dominate the airspace.

Posted by: Perplexed at May 4, 2007 09:47 PM


What a waste of money.

We dont need some bomber to scare China...(which is what the B-2 did to Russia)...cause we wont ever do a full on assualt on china...and if that actually does happen...a slow bomber isn't what would be used.

A interium bomber like the YF-23 makes more sense...since it would be much cheaper...and be able to go around mach 2. Which would make more sense...whether your going after terrorists or rouge nations.

11 years down the road...and they want a bomber thats slow and stealthy....????

It seems the AF doesn't want anything new.
What happened to the PDE engine...that thing showed massive amounts of potential....there no way they would abandon that tech.
If they would make a YF-23 type of bomber...except ditch the jet engine, and go with PDE...they could have a high mach number aircraft...at least mach 5.

Posted by: murc at May 4, 2007 06:33 PM


apologies for the fat fingering typos

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at May 4, 2007 01:40 PM


1. LRS
The parameters tell me more about their planning assumptions tan anything else. And thus I consider this a Medium Range Strike concept.

2. A-12
Check out RAND’s “The Cutting Edge: A Half Century of Fighter Aircraft R&D”
They still have the report available online (I highly recommend anyone interested in this stuff to read it all.
For this thread Chapter 6: (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/MR939.ch6.pdf) is especially important, beginning at Page 146.

There you will see a pretty good basis for the A-12 contractor’s claim that the government did not provide them with essential information, and especially note that while the Northrop bid on the contract was considered way too high in the proposal phase, in the post-mortem analysis, Northrop’s bid was more realistic.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at May 4, 2007 01:39 PM


Isn't the B2 a stealthy, subsonic bomber? I thought something like, amuse me for a moment, a Y-Wing that can go into hyperspace, come out of hyperspace to drop its payload and then back into it. What I mean by that is something that's extremely fast and can slow down enough to drop the payload.

But I'd like to add I'm not an expert on such matters and probably think you lot have guffawed your coffee down your fronts at such a notion.

Posted by: Sunshine Goodness at May 4, 2007 01:24 PM


I hate to say it but unless we can find something novel, and useful that we don't have in bombers we have out now I don't see any reason to design new ones. If we want more bombers great, just buy more of the ones we already have. Hell if we are talking about close air support being a reason how about some more a-10s (With the new updates they are good for so much more than they used to be), if you just want to bomb the crap out of something from airbases thosands of miles away how about B-52s, Cruse missles, B-2s or F-111s for that matter. Can't we think of anything that would be better servered with a complete redesign more than all the bombers we have to choose from?

It seems to be more than anything else the US military needs to figure out how to shrink it's supply chain. We need to use less fuel, require less equipment, and truck less water. How many people have died in Iraq just because of our requirement to truck water and fuel all over the place?

Posted by: The Cenobyte at May 4, 2007 09:37 AM


Yes, I may have exaggerated a tad on the "nearly delivered point".

The air force's next-generation long range strike is not new, but a very delayed replacement for the F-111's range and weapons load and the A-12's stealth, is my point.

That admittedly didn't come through in my little write-up.

Posted by: Stephen Trimble at May 4, 2007 09:32 AM


What's the old story they tell in the airforce? When the last of the B-1's and B-2's are flown into the desert to be put into moth balls or scraped. The crews will be picked up for the flight back home by a B-52! Now you can add this new mythical bomber to the list!

What we really need is a new ruggered short take off [I dont trust vertical take off planes f-35 harrier]attack aircraft. That is what the army ground pounders need and want and the marines swear by. The A-10 can not last for ever and the marines would like to have their own version that can operate from small carriers. A modern jet powered version of the old WW2 flying pancake.

High angle of take off and landing, low speed take off and landing. It's very shape gives it a low radar profile. also leaves vast internal area for weapons and fuel. Give it the same gun the A-10 has and you have a ground suport aircraft that can be used on small support carriers because there will be no need for catapults and aresting gear. It can take off from roads, grass field and dirt roads.

Posted by: davids at May 4, 2007 09:29 AM


I concur with DavidR. I worked on that program from '88 to '90, and I can say with certainty that we were nowhere near delivering anything when Cheney pulled the plug.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at May 4, 2007 09:06 AM


Very nearly delivered?

The contractors were far behind schedule, far over weight, and far over budget when the contract was canceled. "Very nearly delivered" makes it sound like everything was just fine until the mean ol' gub'mint decided to cancel the program just to waste the money.

Posted by: DavidR at May 4, 2007 08:50 AM


No, the next bomber the Air Force uses should focus on:
-robustness, being able to be deployed to smaller bases without expensive maintenance or those B-2 pods
-loitering, with ground to air comm getting better and quicker it's more important to have air support on site than flying around the world
-comm, being able to effectively communicate with ground forces is key. Sacrifice a couple bombs for better communications
-moderate stealth, being stealthy is already covered with B-2s, cruise missiles, and stand-off bombs.

Posted by: Hoax Meister at May 4, 2007 08:20 AM


sorry for the typos...

justify, carrying, annihilate ... embarassing

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at May 4, 2007 07:50 AM


Why so many bombs? Just imagine - a minimum of 100 aircraft needs to be built to really justif a development program. 100 aircraft caarrying each 28 precision strike SDB's ... that's enough to annilihalte the industrial capacity of a country like Ukraine with one sortie of each bomber ...

If strikes were limited to electricity-related industries (powerplants), two bombers were enough to shut down the industry of a country like Ukraine.

(I used the Ukraine to have a decent-sized, developed country as example).

The bombload requirement is exaggerated imho.

The endurance was the more relevant variable in the past years and there are still some B-2's to do jobs like "hit 300 targets within 2 hours while endangering less than 20 soldiers".

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at May 4, 2007 07:19 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.