People without security clearances aren’t going to learn what the winning design for the Long Range Strike Bomber looks like anytime soon, but the Northrop Grumman B-2 bomber probably bears some resemblance. The lack of a fuselage or tail makes it much harder to track with radar; unfortunately, its stealth coatings and other “low-observable” features are a nightmare to maintain. (Wikipedia)
Bloomberg: Bidders Submit Designs for New U.S. Air Force Bomber
Bidders for the U.S. Air Force’s new bomber have produced elaborate designs of their competing offerings, according to a congressional assessment.
Northrop Grumman Corp. and its rival, a partnership of Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co., submitted “two robust designs” at “an unusually high level of detail and development for a system in which the prime contractor has not been selected, according to senior program officials,” the Congressional Research Service said in a report dated Wednesday.
The research service gleaned the information from a briefing that Air Force officials gave to about a dozen defense analysts on Tuesday, providing the most detailed assessment to date of the highly secret program. It may have been an effort to shape the thinking of widely quoted defense analysts before the award is announced. Jeremiah Gertler of the CRS was among those briefed.
WNU Editor: The problems for this program are already starting to crop up .... Senators Slam Pentagon Officials Over Faulty Bomber Estimates (DoD Buzz).
Update: B-3: The Inside Story of America's Next Bomber (Forbes).
3 comments:
My estimate for the cost after Congress, private sector, and conflicting DOD ideas all get to it: 1 Trillion, and 30 years to fly.
I think you're be overly optimistic. I think it will cost more than 1 trillion and it won't even fly. This assumes we don't run out money or more specifically the ability to borrow it before then and it assumes our enemies do not finish us off before the project can come to fruition.
Countries like Russia, China, and India just to name three maintain very effective air forces yet they don't spend this kind of money on this. I'd suggest look at what they are doing and study it closely especially the Russians and the Chinese and try and implement what we can.
The biggest threats in terms of the most dangerous are 1.)an all out nuclear attack against the United States by Russia probably involving cyber warfare against our systems, 2.)an attack on the United States by Islamic terrorists very likely with Iranian involvement involving the use of multiple suitcase nuclear weapons along with "dirty bombs" detonated simultaneously across multiple US metropolitan areas with a death toll in the millions if not the tens of millions, 3)an invasion of the US mainland by Russia, China, some combination of them along with other members of the BRICS.
In terms of "most likely" as opposed to "most dangerous" 1 and 2 would need to be switched. Defending against these threats should be the top priority of American defense officials. A long range strike bomber has no utility when dealing with threats 1 and 2 and when dealing with threat 3 such a plane would only have limited utility at best. As such, it seems to invest resources in this area is an enormous waste of time, money, and resources both human and financial that would be better utilized elsewhere.
Rockets and drones
Post a Comment