US unmanned bomber proposal - Who do they want to kill this time?

[Gatekeeper]

As Eli said, the first hypersonic drone bomber wouldn't be ready for use until 2025.

Also, I read another article that indicated part of the push for this bomber was due to the fact that it would make the United States less reliant on forward basing/foreign bases in order to exert its firepower. Apparently this drone bomber could be launched from anywhere w/i the CONUS (continental United States) and hit a target anywhere on the globe w/i two hours, as the article posted by CerebusIV indicates.

The key part, I imagine, is the part about being less reliant on other nations for forward basing of U.S. military power, at least when it comes to air power.

Gatekeeper

[Kuciwalker]

Which could actually reduce costs.

[GePap]

A 12,000 lb payload? What is that, twice an F-15E's? or about the same?

Seems an extremely high cost for such a small payload. It does not seem it woul be able to roam for targets of opportunity either: it goes after one set target, and that is it...again, is the cost worth it?

I wonder hoe space dropped bombs go with standing treaties about weapons in space? If we start moving forces up there, I don't see why other states should not create anti-satelite systems to take out our eyes in the sky, and then we have to do countermeasures, ans so forth and so on from there.

[Kuciwalker]

These are drones. It would be prohibitively cost-inefficient to build ASAT weapons to hit them. Doesn't the US have something like 5 ASAT missiles?

[GePap]

I am not speaking of weaposn to hit the drones: I am saying that if we start moving weapons systems into the high atmosphere and space, others may see this as violations of treaties against weapons in space, and that perhaps then they might try to create anti-satelite systems. Afer all, communication and GPS satelites are crucial to a system like this. If an enemy took out our GPS satelites, it would make a huge mess of our areal targetting.

[Kuciwalker]

They wouldn't develop ASAT in response to drones though - they would do it because it'd be a good idea to take out our GPS etc.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Where do you think ICBMs go?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Apparently this drone bomber could be launched from anywhere w/i the CONUS (continental United States) and hit a target anywhere on the globe w/i two hours,

This would be a huge advantage because it would reduce our dependance or need on foreign bases. We would no longer have to worry about getting permission to forward deploy. We would no longer have to worry about the time required to prepare a forward base, and move all the necessary equipment. A hot spot could be anywhere on the globe, and if military strikes were required, we could bomb that target with massive ordinance within 2 hours. Also, these bombers would be virtually untouchable since they fly so high as so fast. It would render almost our entire current long range bomber force obsolete!!!!

The bottom line is that such a bomber would have huge advantages that would make it extremelly promising in my book. I hope the US government goes for it.

[Cruddy]

This idea is stupid. I can see it starting wars - I can't see it ending them.

When it the Pentagon going to realise that successful bombing mission <> victory?

Should keep a lot of shareholders on the defense spending gravy train. And that's all it will do.

[Poogas]

Originally posted by GePap
A 12,000 lb payload? What is that, twice an F-15E's? or about the same?

Seems an extremely high cost for such a small payload.

Quote from the article

"It would be going so fast that its small warhead would not matter much since it would hit the target with such force. "

6th paragraph up from the bottom by my count.

[Eli]

This plane is going to be great for fast and easy knocking out of nuclear reactors that, by 2025, will be popping out all around the world in "hostile" countries.

[Stefan Härtel]

Does anybody really want such a thing?
When will they ever learn that the best way of saving lives is by not taking them?

[chequita guevara]

So now bomber pilots are gona be fat, smelly geeks, with lots of dandruff, and have food stains on their clothes surounded by cans of Jolt a Cup O'Noodles?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Stefan Härtel
Does anybody really want such a thing?
When will they ever learn that the best way of saving lives is by not taking them?

When it becomes true

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Where do you think ICBMs go?

They speak of a glide bomb dropped from orbit as a possible weapons system. That ot me is the greater issue.

"It would be going so fast that its small warhead would not matter much since it would hit the target with such force. "

So it is just for fixed sites? Why not use improved cruise missiles then?