Next Gen Stealth Bombers

[Hoot1988 0]

Northrop and Boing have unveild there next generation designed Stealth bombers that are apprenetly in development.

http://gizmodo.com/5051610....erspace

Northrop one looks cool.

[Daniel 0]

Is there really any need for a new bomber? Besides keeping the Northrop and Boeing employees in a job?

Is the current Spirit fleet about to reach the end of it's life?

[sparks50 0]

I guess the B2 bomber was no match for Talibans awesome technological counter stealth measures.

[EddyBoy 0]

Friend of mine who worked for BAE told me the other day the orig B2 was all square and blocky because the computers back in the day couldn't do the sum needed for the stealth. However nice to see comps availble now enable slicker exterior which will help.

Just thought that was a nice fact when he told me

[kavoven 4]

Daniel @ Sep. 18 2008,21:16)]Is there really any need for a new bomber? Besides keeping the Northrop and Boeing employees in a job?

Is the current Spirit fleet about to reach the end of it's life?

Always be one step ahead

[NoRailgunner 0]

You know there is big industry in US:

Quote[/b] ]The US Senate overwhelmingly approved a $612.5bn defence spending bill on Wednesday for fiscal 2009, including $70bn for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the other side Russia:

Quote[/b] ]"Nearly 2.4 trillion roubles ($94.12bn) will be allocated for the needs of national defence and security (in 2009)," Interfax quoted Putin as saying. "This is an increase of 27%."

Didnt find China...

You see who can spend money like water

There is also an growing market for UAVs like Global Hawk.

btw do Russia dig out and upgrading Tu-160 Blackjacks?

[Hoot1988 0]

these days the replace ment aircraft have to be designed 10-20 years before there actually due in service, look at the JSF+F22. The F22 Advanced interceptor program began in 1981 and Lockheed were awarded the F22 contract in 1991 with the first deployments in 2004. back in the 80s there was no need to retire the F-117 but by 2004 there was. And the JSF was started in 1993 and they wont be in service for a few more years yet.

They have to think ahead. way ahead. like this making Airplanes run on coal as were running out of oil thing.

[Commando84 0]

man them F117's looked so slick and cool, so sad them going away way to early imo, wasn't the only ones that could spot them like the russians if they used IR scans or something?

[max power 21]

man them F117's looked so slick and cool, so sad them going away   way to early imo, wasn't the only ones that could spot them like the russians if they used IR scans or something?

The Yugoslav army during the Kosovo war were able to track the Nighthawks for short time using unconventionally tuned radars.  They managed to shoot one down with an improved Serbian version of an SA-3 radar guided missile (originally put into service in the 60s).  They were able to do this with a combination of this radar equipment and tactics they developed by observing these radar ghosts and monitoring their observed flight routes.

[Commando84 0]

ok maybe it was time for a change then but imo they could have pimnped them out a little with flares n countermeasures,

[Baff1 0]

Stealth has had it's day.

[-Snafu- 77]

You better tell the US government then.

[Baff1 0]

I think they already know.

I notice they've had their latest "stealth" fighter intercepting Russian bombers already.

So they clearly aren't bothered with it anymore.

[-Snafu- 77]

"Stealth has had its day" is nothing more than an assumption. Unless, of course, you have access to top secret government files on the future of stealth.

I am pretty sure the US have some aircraft that you don't know about. The Nighthawk was kept a secret for a while IIRC. So you can't say 'stealth has had its day' for sure. Some people thought the tanks day was over with ATGM's but it's still here.

Quote[/b] ]I notice they've had their latest "stealth" fighter intercepting Russian bombers already.

So they clearly aren't bothered with it anymore.

Linky please.

I assume your talking about the F22? It is for actual use you know. It is an air superiority fighter and has now entered service with the USAF. It isn't a Doulton.

There's also this thing being built:

F35

I am no expert on defence matters but you must see something wrong with your statement. It's a little early to say something like that, no?

[Baff1 0]

Actually, I'm a little late.

Stealth was finished the moment the Serbs started shooting them down.

It just took me until they started flying the F22 to realise.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

They look like perversions of the B-2 to me - Stealth doesn't get slicker than the Spirit IMHO...

They'd be better off designing the next-gen as flying saucers... or somewhat more triangular like the Aurora...

[max power 21]

To be fair, only one stealth aircraft- one designed in the 70s- has ever been brought down.

[dm 9]

You guys do realise that the F-22 is STEALTHIER than the F-117 was, right?

Its radar cross section is comparable to that of a bird or a bee, whereas the F-117 was more like a model aircraft or a hang glider.

Couple with that the reduced IR signature, and the F-22 can be considered the "latest" [known about] stealth technology.

Saying "stealth is dead" is like saying the world is flat...

[-Snafu- 77]

Actually, I'm a little late.

Stealth was finished the moment the Serbs started shooting them down.

It just took me until they started flying the F22 to realise.

Stealth technology isn't 100% full proof you know. It is constantly being improved upon as with most other things. With continuing investment in F-22's and F-35's stealth quite obviously has a future. Your statement 'stealth has had its day' has no solid basis at all. Just a weak one which has been refuted by Plaintiff1 and DM.

[MehMan 0]

Actually, I'm a little late.

Stealth was finished the moment the Serbs started shooting them down.

It just took me until they started flying the F22 to realise.

Not really. One was shot down and that's about it. The F-22 is a very different story than the F-117. Read some reports from Red Flag exercises, it's causing quite some havoc because it has such a reduced IR signiature and the cross section of a bird it's impossible to get on radar and pilots reported that even with the F-22 in their sights they couldn't get a lock.

Stealth is not going to die until the classic radar devices that are in large numbers die. And that's a far way away until new, reliable ways of detecting aircraft come into effect.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

You guys do realise that the F-22 is STEALTHIER than the F-117 was, right?

Its radar cross section is comparable to that of a bird or a bee, whereas the F-117 was more like a model aircraft or a hang glider.

Couple with that the reduced IR signature, and the F-22 can be considered the "latest" [known about] stealth technology.

Saying "stealth is dead" is like saying the world is flat...

Sorry DM thats not really true.  Its RCS is only 5% smaller.  Even then its only from the sides where the aspect is actually lower. The F35A is 18% lower than the F-22.  (Unless you beleive in the dieletric skin and the EM warping technology suggested on the UFO sites.)  And the IR signature is still rougly the same as an F-16.  Source for all this is the JSF programme update Feb 2008

As for "stealth" being dead, i really dont think it is.  its probably accurate to say the common media perception of stealth is dead.  There is no "invisible airplane", nor has there ever been.  For the aerospace industry there has only ever been "low observable technology".  Its always been accepted that this technology isnt perfect so they have focused efforts on reducing the range that aircraft can be detected rather than making the aircraft "invisible".  So while "stealth" may not work 100% anymore it can allow and aircraft to get with 20km of a target before being locked up rather than 200km.

What's more interesting to me than the B-2  replacment is the "Stealth Transport" the USAF have announced requirements for: http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw050509_1_n.shtml

[Baff1 0]

Not really. One was shot down and that's about it.

Two.

The other one made it back to base but was written off.

Stealth is dead. The whole concept will never recieve that sort of budget again nor will it be allowed to dominate the design of future airframes as it did the last ones.

They just didn't get the shelf life life out of them. It was a white elephant.

The most we will see now is Stealth lite.

[-Snafu- 77]

Since when does that constitute being shot down?

Regardless, stealth tech. clearly has a future.

[Baff1 0]

When it is hit by a guided missile first.

A highly expensive secret weapon designed to give the U.S. a one shot, first strike capacity in a war that was never fought.

They have used it.

They can't afford any more and the cold war is long over.

Stealth technology has reached and eclipsed it's zenith.

@Rock,

Just a quick query, why do you think something with a 5% reduction in radar profile, will be able to go an extra 180/200 miles without getting locked?

Wouldn't 5% of 200 miles be an extra 10 miles?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

@Rock,

Just a quick query, why do you think something with a 5% reduction in radar profile, will be able to go an extra 180/200 miles without getting locked?

Wouldn't 5% of 200 miles be an extra 10 miles?

That’s not what I said.  Go back and read it again.

To clarify:  A "stealthy" plane could get closer than a conventional plane before being detected.

Personally I think the F-22 is a white elephant.  No doubt the technology is impressive and in exercises it’s performed well in the air to air regime.  But in an age of CAS and minimal air to air threats a true multirole aircraft would have been a much more cost effective approach.  The US DoD seems to be thinking this way too since they are considering slashing the procurement numbers to ~100 and reinvesting in transport and tactical aircraft.  

I understand the stealth aspect, I even understand the hugely expensive avionics and - if they ever get it - the expense of the new datalink* systems.  But in this age of warfare with all its low tech threats I still think they would have been better spending the money on new Tactical aircraft.  Or at least Swing Role aircraft rather than the “Bolt-on†functionality that they are shoe horning into the current avionics suite.

On the up side the F-35 programme has benefitted hugely from the “flamingo ups†(It’s like a cock up but much more spectacular) of the F-22 programme.  Lockheed have learnt how to cost effectively make and handle large scale composites, radar absorbent materials and how not to develop avionics suites.  While I don’t see the need for a dedicated fighter* anymore, nor do I think the F-22 is the “uber†plane some think it is.  I do appreciate the leap in technology it represents.

* While a datalink system was tested on F-22s it is not standard nor is it fully compatible with the current Link 16 standard and requires a large and expensive project to make it so.  The funding for which has so far come under review twice. Source AFM, DID and Janes

** Yes I realise it can drop JDAM, SDB and JSAM but it wasn’t designed to.  This feature was bolted on to offset concerns about cancellation of the programme by the US senate.  And can only do so be massively compromising its “stealth†capability.  Its RCS jumps to something similar to a F-16 class target. Source AFM and Janes