US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Ambivalent

Junior Member
At the time a smooth bore gun like an over sized tank gun might have been considered giving a much higher muzzle velocity and range.
I remember a project to develop a round for the 155mm army gun with four fins on the tip on a surely extremely expensive bearing to guide the shell to its target. A guided smooth bore projectile must be much cheaper and can have a longer range.

Eh, any time you talk moving parts cheap ceases to be a part of the discussion. The advantage of a smoothbore gun is that it withstands erosion from high powered charges better than a rifled barrel will so their performance doesn't degrade as quickly. That is why they prevail in tank main gun designs. The energy necessary to penetrate modern composite armors dictates really hot rounds that are hard on barrels. The Brits hung on to their rifled barrels so they could stick with their HESH round, and changed barrels often, but when the great majority of potential enemy tanks no longer presented a target HESH could defeat, they too adopted smooth bore barrels.
You will notice those tank rounds use a sabot and have fixed fins. The environment in a big gun like that isn't really conducive to keeping things like folding fins in place. It can be done, and is done, but not inexpensively.
 

delft

Brigadier
Large guns have never been cheap. My main point is that the muzzle velocity of rifled tank gun is about 0.9 km/s, for the smooth bores it's about 1.6 km/s. In a high angle mounting the smooth bore gives a much larger range. The near 30 km range of the "70's naval gun was irrelevant, because the ship might need to be defended by air power, that might just as well be used to do the bombing.
The performance of this gun was decidedly modest. At the same time the Vietnamese army used 130 mm guns with a range of 32 km at the liberation of Saigon.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
I found this on xinhuanet..a Chinese website..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


BEIJING, Feb. 18 (Xinhuanet) -- The Pentagon announced the plan to spend 3.7 billion U.S. dollars on 80-100 new stealth bombers, according to Washington Times reports.

This comes after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' two-year-delay of the new long-range bombers plan. It seeks to add new capabilities aimed at future threats.

Earlier this month the U.S. Navy said that it successfully tested its latest weapon in aerial warfare, the X-47B unmanned aircraft.

The plane accomplished its first flight at the Edwards Airforce Base in California.

The test team said the flight has met their objectives and moved the program forward.

The plane is the first drone capable of carrying out pre-programmed missions autonomously. Take-off, landing, in-flight refueling and the deployment of weapons are all controlled by computer.

(Agencies)

The article is vague in that it does not specify what sort of stealth bombers will be built.

I could not find any US sources releasing this story..I checked the US DoD news releases and found nothing..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Any other sources???
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Ha ha! I did find this..it solves my mystery!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Officially, the $3.7 billion set aside for the “Long Range Strike” program in the Pentagon’s 2012 budget is meant simply to draw up plans for a new, stealthy heavy bomber for the Air Force — a replacement for the Cold War era fleet of long range, strategic aircraft. “It is important that we begin this project now to ensure that a new bomber can be ready before the current aging fleet goes out of service,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said.

What he didn’t say is that the new bomber might already be flying, in prototype form, somewhere deep inside the Air Force’s complex of secret test bases.

According to the Pentagon, the new bomber is still just a concept. “Right now we’re in the technology-leveraging phase,” said Maj. Gen. Alfred Flowers, a senior Air Force budget official. Over the next five years, the Air Force plans to spend $3.7 billion on the bomber, with the goal of equipping the first squadron in the early 2020s.

This is actually the Air Force’s second attempt in just four years to build a new bomber. The first try — the so-called “2018 bomber” — was canceled on cost and technical grounds in 2009. The current go-around is designed to avoid those pitfalls. “We are relying on mature” — proven — “technologies, [so] we will be able to mitigate a lot of risk,” added Marilyn Thomas, Flowers’ civilian deputy.

It’s the “mature technologies” comment that got ace aviation reporter Bill Sweetman thinking.

The Air Force “consistently refers to its new bomber as based on ‘proven technology,’ but there is no known basis of proof for its most important single feature: a degree of stealth high enough to assure survival in a heavily defended area, combined with affordability in manufacture and support.”

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t an unknown — in other words, classified — program that spawned the “mature” stealth technologies for the new bomber. After all, the Air Force’s roughly $30-billion-a-year black budget is more than adequate to fund a wide range of cutting-edge weapon systems. At least one secret plane, the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 drone, recently emerged from the shadows.

In fact, Sweetman believes he has identified the bomber prototype’s manufacturer: Northrop Grumman, builder of the 1990s-vintage B-2 stealth bomber. In mid-2008, Northrop’s financial documents listed a $2-billion “restricted programs” contract that Sweetman claims paid for a bomber prototype.

Sweetman doubled down on his claim by linking the secret prototype to another high-tech Northrop program. “It is likely that the prototype will build on technology under development for the Navy’s X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator,” he wrote in 2008. The X-47, pictured, is a killer drone meant to fly off carrier decks. It flew for the first time this month.

The link between the killer drone and a new bomber isn’t at all far-fetched. Several years ago, Northrop’s own art department produced an image of a new bomber that bears a striking resemblance to the much smaller X-47. And considering how smoothly the X-47 seems to be progressing, a larger manned version need not be far behind.

Of course, Sweetman might be wrong. When the Air Force says that bomber tech is “mature,” it could be referring only to the bits and pieces — engines, sensors, skin-coatings, etc. — that might eventually be combined to make an entire airplane. But based on the evidence, it’s equally possible that an early version of the Air Force’s next stealth bomber is already flying somewhere.
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
I don't understand why a manned stealth bomber is even necessary anymore. UAVs can and should do that job, especially because long range bombers are not very survivable in any large scale conventional war.
 

delft

Brigadier
From the Washington Times article is here a fragment:

New strike bomber

Two years after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates shelved plans for a new long-range bomber, the Pentagon announced on Monday it will spend $3.7 billion on80 to 100 new high-tech stealth bombers capable of being piloted remotely or with an onboard crew.

That doesn't look like a system in development, if the decision whether to provide space for an air crew has not been taken.

Here is the address:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Ambivalent

Junior Member
I don't understand why a manned stealth bomber is even necessary anymore. UAVs can and should do that job, especially because long range bombers are not very survivable in any large scale conventional war.

I disagree. What is your expertise to say this?
The B-2's mission was blowing the lids on Soviet missile silos with conventional weapons using heavy penetrator warheads, so we could degrade Russia's first strike capability without going nuclear first. The idea was that there would be a five day race between Soviet and Nato forces, five days for the US to reinforce Europe (REFORGER-REturn of FORces to GERmany) before the Soviets could block French ports and German airfields. During that five days F-117's would be hunting Soviet mobile IRBMs and B-2's would be working Soviet silos. Neither side thought the other would go nuclear from the outset, but which ever side was defeated in Europe might escalate to a nuclear conflict. Our hope was to leave Soviet nuclear forces too depleted for them to contemplate nuclear war and leverage our own superiority to force them to back down. It was designed to survive in the well protected airspace of the old USSR.
The B-2 is certainly still capable of this mission today against another adversary or the Russians if it ever came to that. It is a better bomber now than it was when it was built. It is far from a sitting duck and can attack anyplace in the world from bases in the US.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Boeing will build Air Refueling Tankers for the USAF called the KC-46A.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The U.S. Air Force announced Thursday that it has selected Boeing’s NewGen Tanker to be its new KC-46A air refueling jet.
The contract award, which follows a rigorous Air Force review of industry proposals, means Boeing will build the next-generation tanker that will replace 179 of the service’s 1950s-era KC-135s.
Boeing officials said they are honored by the selection and will meet the Air Force’s requirement to deliver the first 18 combat-ready aircraft by 2017.
“This contract award would not have been possible without the hundreds of Boeing employees across the entire company, and the thousands of our industry teammates, who remained laser-focused on our commitment to offer a solution that is first in capability and best in value,” said Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security. “This award is also a tribute to the Air Force and Defense Department officials who worked so tirelessly to make this procurement process fair, ultimately resulting in the selection of the right plane for the mission. We look forward to working with our Air Force customer to deliver this much needed capability to the servicemen and women we are honored to serve.”
Tankers are critical to the U.S. armed forces, extending the range of fighters, bombers and other aircraft by transferring fuel to them in flight. The NewGen Tanker combines the latest, most advanced technology with the proven Boeing 767 commercial airplane.
The NewGen Tanker has a modern, digital flight deck based on the new Boeing 787 commercial airliner, and advanced defensive systems so it can safely operate close to the fight. It meets or exceeds all Air Force requirements.
Boeing will build the NewGen Tanker with a low-risk approach. It will use a trained and experienced U.S. work force at existing facilities in Washington state and Kansas, and an existing supplier network in more than 40 states.
Boeing has built and supported tankers for more than 60 years, and company employees said they are rolling up their sleeves to begin work on this newest tanker right away.
To learn more about the KC-46A tanker, visit
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

[video=youtube;yV2ETv8NJE0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV2ETv8NJE0&feature=related[/video]
 

delft

Brigadier
Doesn't the USAF know it's the KC-46A or doesn't Boeing know it's the KC-45A?
Among the people honored for there hard work I miss the lobbyists who have worked for many years to beat the Airbus tanker, that's just as good.
 
Top