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

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Do we really need another long range nuclear bomber? Why waste money on a weapon system which isn't needed and won't be used?

The point is, it would be able to attack longe ranger, all of our long ranges bombers are not seriously considered as a primary nuclear strike asset anymore.

We have SLBMs for that.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Lonestar


The point is, it would be able to attack longe ranger, all of our long ranges bombers are not seriously considered as a primary nuclear strike asset anymore.

We have SLBMs for that.

Not as many that I would want. SALT limitation.

[Ted Striker]

i am already bombing people as we speak

thanks

[Drake Tungsten]

if all goes well, in a 100 years theyll have stealth fighters, and we'll have star destroyers

I like the way you think.

[Kramerman]

it would be cool. the US would tatolly dominate the world if we had such a tech adavantage... like in civ, when i have tanks and everyone else has chariots...

[Lonestar]

I'd be happy with GDI Ion cannons.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I'd be happy with GDI Ion cannons.

hi ,

who knows , maybe in 100 years , .......

forget b3 , go straight for hypersoar


HyperSoar hypersonic Global Range Recce/Strike Aircraft the size of a B-52 could take off from the US and deliver its payload to any point on the globe - from an altitude and at a speed that would challenge current defensive measures - and return to the US without the need for refueling or forward bases on foreign soil. Equipment and personnel could also be transported.
HyperSoar could fly at approximately 6,700 mph (Mach 10), while carrying roughly twice the payload of subsonic aircraft of the same takeoff weight.

The HyperSoar concept promises less heat build-up on the airframe than previous hypersonic designs - a challenge that has until now limited the development of hypersonic aircraft. The key to HyperSoar is the skipping motion of its flight along the edge of Earth's atmosphere - much like a rock skipped across water. A HyperSoar aircraft would ascend to approximately 130,000 feet - lofting outside the Earth's atmosphere - then turn off its engines and coast back to the surface of the atmosphere. There, it would again fire its air-breathing engines and skip back into space. The craft would repeat this process until it reached its destination.


A mission from the midwestern United States to east Asia would require approximately 25 such skips to complete the one-and-a-half-hour journey. The aircraft's angles of descent and ascent during the skips would only be 5 degrees. The crew would feel 1.5 times the force of gravity at the bottom of each skip and weightlessness while in space. (1.5 Gs is comparable to the effect felt on a child's swing, though HyperSoar's motion would be 100 times slower.) Although the porpoising effect of a HyperSoar flight might test the adventurousness of some airline passengers, this would not impact military or space launch applications.

Most current hypersonic designs rely on rocket engines to boost the aircraft to the edge of space, from where the craft essentially glides back down to its destination. Other designs simply use engines to push the aircraft through the atmosphere.

All previous concepts have suffered from heat buildup on the surface of the aircraft and in various aircraft components due to friction with the atmosphere. A HyperSoar plane would experience less heating because it would spend much of its flight out of the Earth's atmosphere. Also, any heat the craft picked up while "skipping" down into the atmosphere could be at least partially dissipated during the aircraft's time in the cold of space.

Another HyperSoar advantage is its use of air-breathing engines. Most conventional hypersonic designs rely on rocket motors to boost the aircraft to the edge of space. By not boosting to as high a velocity, and by dropping back into the atmosphere at the bottom of each "skip," a HyperSoar plane can utilize air- breathing engines, which are inherently more efficient than rocket engines. Also, HyperSoar engines would be used strictly as accelerators, rather than as accelerators and cruising engines - as in some hypersonic designs - thereby greatly simplifying the design and reducing technical risk.

Waveriders are aerodynamic shapes designed such that the bow shock generated by the configuration is attached along the outer leading edge at the design Mach number. The shock attachment condition confines the high-pressure region behind the shock wave to the lower surface of the configuration, which provides the potential for high lift-to-drag ratios. Waveriders also offer potential propulsion/airframe integration (PAI) benefits because of their ability to deliver a known uniform flow field to a scramjet inlet.

Enhanced mixing mixing between the fuel and airstream, and thus reduced combustor length and engine weight, is an important goal in the design of supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) engines. Cryogenic hydrogen fuel was chosen for air-breathing scramjet propulsion for the National AeroSpace Plane. Selection was based on its high specific energy, its high heat-sink capacity for structural cooling, and its ability to burn very rapidly and sustain flameholding in strained recirculation zones.

The HyperSoar concept has been under investigation by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for several years and is being discussed with the US Air Force and other government agencies. Livermore has been working with the University of Maryland's Department of Aerospace Engineering to refine the aerodynamic and trajectory technologies associated with the concept.
Other potential applications for HyperSoar aircraft include:

Space lift - HyperSoar could be employed as the first stage of a two-stage-to- orbit space launch system. Research shows this approach will allow approximately twice the payload-to-orbit as today's expendable launch systems for a given gross takeoff weight.
Passenger aircraft - A commercial HyperSoar airliner or business jet could reach any destination on the planet from the continental U.S. in two hours or less.
Freighter - A HyperSoar freight aircraft could make four or more roundtrips to, say, Tokyo each day from the U.S. versus one or less for today's aircraft. Analysis indicates a HyperSoar aircraft flying express mail between Los Angeles and Tokyo could generate ten times the daily revenue of a similarly- sized subsonic cargo plane of today.

Proponents estimate that approximately $140 million would be needed over the next few years to advance several technologies to the point where a $350 million one-third-scale flyable prototype could be built and tested. The development cost of full-scaled HyperSoar aircraft is estimated at about the same as spent to develop the Boeing Company's new 777, or nearly $10 billion.


have a nice day

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kramerman
it would be cool. the US would totally dominate the world if we had such a tech adavantage... like in civ, when i have tanks and everyone else has chariots...

The US leads in military tech is a simple result of our spending levels. If the Japanese decided to spend 150 billion a year on their military (which would put them about our percentage of the economy going into the military) then in less than a decade they would catch up to the US in military technology. Ditto for the Europeans and Russians. Our domination is based on the fact that those who could challenge the US don't try or don;t have the money to right now, not on any real tech lead.

[DanS]

Well, this is hardly going into production mode. More like looking for a blue sky design.

Overall, I think we should be spending money on making individual soldiers safer, better taken care of, and more powerful while in the field. It would seem that much better MREs would help morale, for instance. And better, less intrusive, body armor would be great too. Seeing our boys get taken out by snipers and RPGs in Baghdad--decidedly low tech--makes it apparent that a high political price is paid with little expenditure by a low-level intensity enemy. Anything to reduce the political price and to help bring our boys home in one piece would be very valuable. Further, this is something that is a need right now, not 25 years from now.

Objective Force Warrior is so riddled with defense research double-speak it's laughable, but I guess we would have to create such a program and beef it up, if one didn't already exist.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by GePap


The US leads in military tech is a simple result of our spending levels. If the Japanese decided to spend 150 billion a year on their military (which would put them about our percentage of the economy going into the military) then in less than a decade they would catch up to the US in military technology. Ditto for the Europeans and Russians. Our domination is based on the fact that those who could challenge the US don't try or don;t have the money to right now, not on any real tech lead.

whats your point? everyone knows this. Sounds like your trying to make one where none is needed...

Regardless of why we have a gap in military tech, we have it... duh... end of story. everybody knows its because of the amount we spend... we were just talking about that, and in the post before i was saying. im not saying we are more intellegent than the rest of the world... all im saying is we should spend more on R&D to maintain and widen the tech gap

[Kuciwalker]

No, if they spent that much money per year, they would stop falling behind. They have to spend more than us to catch up.

[GePap]

Originally posted by skywalker
No, if they spent that much money per year, they would stop falling behind. They have to spend more than us to catch up.

Given that most of the possible competitors do not have to pay for as huge a force as we, they don;t have to pay much more. The biggest leap the uS has on anyone else is in space, with our satelite networks (the Japanese are as advanced in electronics as we are). This is were others would really have to spend lots to catch up.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by GePap


Given that most of the possible competitors do not have to pay for as huge a force as we, they don;t have to pay much more. The biggest leap the uS has on anyone else is in space, with our satelite networks (the Japanese are as advanced in electronics as we are). This is were others would really have to spend lots to catch up.

our experience and talent and equipment at force projection is a pretty vast gap too. even if technically someone did not lack the technology to do what we do. if they wanted to do what we do it would take them years and years and billions upon billions of dollars of R&D and set up.

[GePap]

Training is not that huge a gap: plenty of other can pay for computer simulators. As for equipment, it depebnds wrre. our armor is not that significantly better to other NATO states or Japan. Smart bombs are relatively cheap really, and it would not take much to catch up to US standards there. The Japanese already have AEGIS systems, and other states already have AWACS and such. To procure an amhibious landing force or large air transports is expensive, but none of our competitors would need as many, and ditto for air refueling.

The question of a US lead is a simple one: do other state have a reason to catch up? if they do, they will. If they don't, then we are OK. Only as long as the Euros and Japanese do not feel they need to, or the Chinese and Russians remain to poor to do so, will our lead continue as large as today. And the biggest factor will remain space assets.

[yavoon]

even if everyone knows what a radar is. and aluminum and steel and titanium, computer chips..etc etc.

to tell a bunch of engineers to say go build a carrier battle group(the pinnacle of force projection). they'd be dumbfounded. just to put something in the water that isnt a joke would be billions upon billions of dollars. much less to tactically and logistically support, or to refine those tactics. or nething.

the gap is enormous. u underestimate the engineering challenge(as well as the monetary and political) of design and implementation. and put all ur emphasis on simply posession of the technology.