Jump to content

Talk:Next-Generation Bomber

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why the MOP up?

[edit]

BillCat just zapped away the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. If we shan't mention the primary weapon for this aircraft, why keep this page at all? Hcobb (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's heating up.

US Pacific Air Force commander Gary North has said that the Next-Generation Bomber may prove the key to defeating the Chengdu J-20 in future conflicts by knocking the Chinese airbases out of action.[1]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23360 According to Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Phillip Breedlove, the bomber will comprise the biggest part of a ‘family of systems’ that will also include a non-nuclear ballistic missile plus new munitions for the bomber and two types of stealthy drones that might be controlled from the bomber. The new missiles and planes will be ‘decades ahead’ of what other countries might possess, Breedlove claimed.

So why zap the Global War on China bits? Hcobb (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can't say whether or not the bits should be included, but claims that the NGB is "the key to defeating the J-20" are, to use my own very POV term, laughable. That's a general saying what the Air Force thinks needs to be said to get funding for NGB; the true keys to defeating the J-20 are actually F-22s (and F-15SEs, perhaps) - IMHO of course, but suggesting we need a bomber to kill Chinese fighters' airfields is rahter odd logic at best. (And reminds me of Bill Gunston's constant harping about the vulnerability of airfields, too!). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But surely the USAF's own rationalizations for the NGB must by definition be notable, no? Hcobb (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are missing the future aims. It will use A2A for self-defense, and perhaps even as long-range A2A arsenal to support the F-22 from LR. Acting something like A2A artillery while the fighters are spotters and keep themselves (and their limited load) for the real F2F combat. This is also where the LR sensor drones and hypersonic missiles will serve for. All necessary for distance theater warfare where limited number of fighters with limited loads and range can't do the amount of fights needed. Mightyname (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Axe, David. "New US Bomber Aimed at China?" The Diplomat, 22 February 2011.

The need for speed?

[edit]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120716/DEFREG02/307160003/Future-USAF-Acquisition-Focus-Pacific?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE A blended wing — a mix of a standard plane and a flying wing — would not be conducive for a supersonic aircraft, Aboulafia said. “You want something that has speed, range, stealth, high altitude [and is] optionally manned,” he said.

The only near-term design that meets Aboulafia's list is the FB-22 of course. Should we assume that he's off in his own OR corner again, or is the need for speed sufficiently well placed to add back here? Hcobb (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm answering because it deserves dispelling speculation. First, there's nothing worth noting from that articles other than no engine being selected yet. Not important at all. As to speed it depends on the aerodynamic design and simply engine power. For the bomber the amount of fuel also plays an important role especially due to range, and the refuel distance from the battle field. As far as simple aerodynamic calculation goes even the B-2 might be able to do 1.2 Mach but it does not have the power. Aerodynamically, Mach speed can be made possible by sweep or folding wings so it's not a real problem aerodynamically. Whether those tricks are stealthy is another problem. As far as engine power go the new fighter engines have plenty of it. It all comes down to max. takeoff mass and fuel. It definitely does not have the fuel going at Mach speed for the distance required. If anything it's all about short term dash speed. In the end the mass will decide it. I bet it's on the wish list but at this point it's just plausible. Mightyname (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NGB vs LRS-B

[edit]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-usaf-targets-long-range-strike-bomber-377597/ For range and payload, a departure from the NGB - a medium-sized bomber with a combat radius of 2,000-2,500nm (3,700-4,620km), translating into a 4,000-5,000nm range - was inevitable. "The air force desperately needs a new bomber, but they didn't need the kind of bomber the air force was developing," Thompson says of the NGB.

This article is mistaken to equate the two programs. Hcobb (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although, both programs are different they do lead to the same intended interim/long term solution. I request a rewrite of the whole article with a clear separation between both programs that would eventually lead to the B-3 bomber as the final product. There are more information available but as it is it would only lead to more confusion and chaos. Mightyname (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lead states the change to Long Range Strike and the "Long-range strike" section heading under Development indicates the change to Long-range strike already. Some change probably should be made, bitbut not a total rewrite, imo. There has not been much media coverage on this lately, at least not with any details. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem is the difference is not really clear. The article talks on the political rational level but not on the role-requirement level. The transition is rather fluent. In reality it's a difference between a 100,000 lb class and a 300,000 lb class ship. The change in the roles needs more in-depth research. It has been a bit silent since it was declared black, but there are very detailed information available. There can be more coming from derived conclusion or counting things together but those are outside the scientific proofing policy. For example why the 28000 lb payload also means a single 30000 lb payload. Mightyname (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be fixed- either rename the article to "Long-Range Strike-B" or split it into two articles, or something. It's now confused between the two. --LBiller39 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the 'Next-Generation Bomber' and the 'Long Range Strike-Bomber' are the same program. There is evidence these are different programs. For example defensenews.com says 'In April 2009, Gates axed an earlier Air Force effort, the Next Generation Bomber program' [1], indicating that the Next-Generation Bomber program was ended, and that the Long Range Strike-Bomber program is a different program. This article should be split. - Crosbie 20:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of "air force"

[edit]

The Manual of Style does not allow the capitalization of "air force" just because it is referring to one particular air force. I hope not to get into a bug tussle over this. Of course, if I am mistaken, I would be happy to enforce whatever the MoS say and I ask only that you put me right. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of comments, I shall return it to standard English usage. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just use USAF everywhere? Hcobb (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would work. I would wonder why bother. It really isn't an issue. Even of you think it looks funny (I think "coast guard" looks bad), you will soon be used to it. But yes, USAF in all instances would be fine. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this thread here and went ahead and changed it to "Air Force". In every case, the article is talking about the US Air Force, not generic air forces. I looked at the policy which Paul mentioned, but it isn't clear about this situation, at least to me. Go ahead and change it back if you think that's better. --LBiller39 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aspects of the F-35 may also derived for the bomber

[edit]

Is it okay to reject an edit on the basis of grammar? Hcobb (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no one engage Hcobb. Until he is specific as to what he is talking about and what he is asking, no one engage him. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is strategypage.com a blog or a RS?

[edit]

Brought the subject up at:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Is_strategypage.com_a_blog_or_a_RS.3F

And conclusion was that the sourcing was weak. Hcobb (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original Analysis, Specification, Road-map

[edit]

Can I add the original information from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments again? After all it's more clear now requirement, technical development, and schedule can't change just because of pretty political advertising. Mightyname (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference

[edit]

Between this NGB/LRS-B and the 2037 Bomber?Phd8511 (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2037 Bomber already has a separate article and is not covered here. The NG Bomber was originally called the 2018 bomber. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LRS-B merger proposal

[edit]

Possibly useful material from 2037 Bomber

[edit]

The 2037 Bomber[1] was the unofficial title of a projected program to develop a heavy strategic bomber for the United States Air Force. Intended to serve as a replacement for the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, the aircraft was projected to enter service by around 2037 as a new generation stealth, supersonic, all weather, long-range intercontinental heavy bomber aircraft with capability for unmanned operation.[2][3]

With the ending of B-2 Spirit production in 2000, the U.S. Air Force was left with a gap in its bomber development. A new bomber would be needed to be fielded in the 2037 time frame to replace retiring B-52s and B-1 Lancers according to the Air Force's Bomber Roadmap, released in 1999;[4][5] according to that roadmap, the acquisition process time for the 2037 Bomber would be 18 years.[6]

This was considered too long to wait. In 2001, a strategy review warned US land and sea forces might be insufficient;[7] by 2004 the Air Force changed its position and indicated it wanted a new bomber by the mid 2020's —without cancelling the 2037 Bomber.[8] The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review formalised the Air Force's intent to bring forward the project almost two decades.[9] Eventually, the Air Force commenced the Next-Generation Bomber program (later the Long Range Strike Bomber program).[10][11]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Fox, Will. "2037 Timeline of the Future - 6th Generation Fighter - Technology - 2030s". www.futuretimeline.net.
  2. ^ "Stealth Reborn". Popular science. 9 January 2009.
  3. ^ SHARON WEINBERGER (10 December 2007). "Future Bomber: No Money, No Problem". Wired. Retrieved 19 April 2021. saving future technologies (like supersonic speed, death beam weapons, and unmanned flight) for the quasi-mythical 2037 bomber
  4. ^ Tirpak, John A. "The Bomber Roadmap". Air Force Magazine, June 1999. Retrieved December 30, 2015 (PDF version)
  5. ^ Grant, Rebecca. "Return of the Bomber, The Future of Long-Range Strike", p. 11, 17, 29. Air Force Association, February 2007.
  6. ^ Adam J. Hebert (1 March 2008). "The "2018 Bomber" Controversy". Airforce Magazine. Retrieved 19 April 2021. the Bomber Roadmap of 1999 postulated an 18-year acquisition effort to bring in the "2037 Bomber."
  7. ^ Axe, David (19 May 2014). "Will the $55 billion bomber program fly?". Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved 20 April 2021. the Air Force believed it could wait until 2037 for a new bomber. But in 2001, a Defense Department strategy review warned that another world power could launch a surprise attack on a U.S. ally that U.S. ground and naval forces could not prevent
  8. ^ Tarteret, Alexis (February 2015). "Structure des forces stratégiques américaines en 2018 en vertu du New Start Treaty" (PDF). La Note du CESA (Centre d’études stratégiques aérospatiales) (in French) (18). IRSEM. Retrieved 20 April 2021. Elle a par la suite changé son discours en 2004 en affirmant qu'elle aurait besoin d'un nouveau bombardier moyen dès 2020 (sans annuler le programme 2037 Bomber)
  9. ^ Jeremiah Gertler (14 April 2016). "Air Force B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber" (PDF). Ars Technica. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 20 April 2021. Prior to 2006, the Air Force had indicated that its fleet of B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers would suffice until 2037 [...] The 2006 QDR's call for a new bomber that would enter service in 2018 thus accelerated Air Force plans for fielding a new bomber by almost 20 years.
  10. ^ Hebert, Adam J. "Long-Range Strike in a Hurry", Air Force Magazine, November 2004, Retrieved December 30, 2015, (PDF version)
  11. ^ Murch, Anthony, "RL34406, The Next Generation Bomber: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress", p. 17–20, Congressional Research Service, 7 March 2008, Archived at: Archived June 11, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Next-Generation_Bomber&oldid=1248634823"