The Supersonic Shape-Shifting Bomber

[Thunder]

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/0f2505a52aceb010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

The title says all

 

[Owais]

Its just a concept right now which may takes about 20years to complete as mentioned in the article.

 

[glyn]

I know that it will be regarded as heresy by some, but what point is there in a supersonic bomber? Whatever role may be imagined for it can be done just as well, and more cheaply by other means, cruise missiles for one - and these do not require the launch carrier to be supersonic. Most fighters have a ground attack capability, and the swing-role versions become fighters after the bombs have been released and can fight their way out of hostile territory. Remember the B-58 Hustler? It did not enjoy a long service life, whilst the B-52 which was in service first is still in service, and likely to remain so for decades!

 

[Thunder]

Agreed with you sir, but like they say, don't put you egss in one basket. Bombers are infact becoming obselate, but not fast enough. Maybe 6th gen fighters will actully be fighters and leaving the bombing to the missiles or something they probabley invanted by then

 

[LeGenD]

Agreed with you sir, but like they say, don't put you egss in one basket. Bombers are infact becoming obselate, but not fast enough. Maybe 6th gen fighters will actully be fighters and leaving the bombing to the missiles or something they probabley invanted by then

Bombers will not be obsolete even in the future!

Bombers have some advantages that other aircraft can't give and these are:

- Massive Payload Capacity
- Can carry all kinds of ammunition (ranging from small to big)
- Carpet Bombing Capability
- Long Range

Point is that new bombers will emerge in future that will be supersonic in nature perhaps just like you mentioned.

USAF is now operating the new fleet of B-2 Spirit Bomber, which is a stealthy bomber. They invested billions of dollars in this project for a reason so Bombers are not going anywhere.

Russians have also developed new bombers and they have now defined expanded roles of there updated bomber fleet in case of future conflicts.

 

[glyn]

Bombers will not be obsolete even in the future!

Bombers have some advantages that other aircraft can't give and these are:

- Massive Payload Capacity

Yes, but a number of smaller swing-role aircraft can match the total payload.

- Can carry all kinds of ammunition (ranging from small to big)

Only the very heaviest bombs cannot be carried by modern multi-role aircraft, but how often are these very heavy bombs used? If we are talking about the 'daisycutter' the C-130 can drop that when required.

- Carpet Bombing Capability

A very old concept of extremely limited use in todays Air Forces.

- Long Range

This is not the sole perogative of the bomber as virtually every fighter and attack plane regularly indulge in air-to-air refuelling.

Point is that new bombers will emerge in future that will be supersonic in nature perhaps just like you mentioned.

I disagree. What advantage is there in having supersonic capabilty?

USAF is now operating the new fleet of B-2 Spirit Bomber, which is a stealthy bomber. They invested billions of dollars in this project for a reason so Bombers are not going anywhere.

The B-2 Spirit is firmly subsonic. It may well prove to be the last manned bomber of the western powers. It only has a crew of two people. I suggest that when the time comes to replace it in service it will be by an unmanned machine.

Russians have also developed new bombers and they have now defined expanded roles of there updated bomber fleet in case of future conflicts.

The Russians are going off the idea of bombers as well, and haven't made any new developments in that field since the fall of communism. The bomber is going the way of the Dinosaur. It is not alone. I expect tanks to go the same way.

 

[LeGenD]

The Russians are going off the idea of bombers as well, and haven't made any new developments in that field since the fall of communism. The bomber is going the way of the Dinosaur. It is not alone. I expect tanks to go the same way.

Once again!

This is just speculation.

Tank will also not be eliminated because it is the only best protected frontline assault machine for an army.

US is developing a new Tank under a program called FCS. Americans also have tested a M1A6 prototype tank.

Same is the case with Israel. It has developed Merkava MK4 which is also very well suitable for fighting in urban envoirnment like cities etc.

And many other nations are also developing and testing new prototypes of Tanks.

Tanks will not be ended at any cost or it will be suicide for any military because they will have to face the threat of Anti-tank rockets in wars even in future.

Britian has developed and testing a new prototype tank that can tolerate any kind of Anti-tank weapon in the world. It's details have been revealed recently!

As long as China and Russia are developing Tanks, Americans and Europeans will also do the same.

Airpower can counter the threat of Tanks but soldiers on the ground also need something that can give them decisive edge in combat and blitzkrieg type invasion like the recent Iraqi invasion 2003 requires a high-tech and well protected ground force.

About bombers!

I am telling you that they will not get obsolete because they have some benefits that other weapons cannot substitute against.

Do you know that B-3 (F/B-22) bomber is in consideration by USAF?

Even B-52 fleet will remain in service till 2045.

The future bombers will be stealthy just like B-2 Spirit but will be much faster.

Only the very heaviest bombs cannot be carried by modern multi-role aircraft, but how often are these very heavy bombs used? If we are talking about the 'daisycutter' the C-130 can drop that when required.

C-130 Jet is not safe enough to throw massive Air-fuel bombs on targets during heavy AA fire from ground by enemy because it can be easily knocked out of equation by any SAM System.

Bombers are considered obsolete in logical sense and that does not means that they will be phased out in future and not replaced by something as capable.

Here is a comment from a western source:

The military transformation of the 21st century made these bombers obsolete in their original form, but when transforming to "net centric" assets, they become an instrumental element of Battlefield Air Operations, with unmatched weapons carrying capacity, mission endurance, global reach and rapid response capabilities.

Source: http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-4-04/strike-bombers.htm

Last time I remember! not long ago Carpet Bombing was extensively conducted in Afganistan during "Operation Enduring Freedom" to wipe out large formations of dug-in Taliban fighters in 2001.

Of-course! current USA bomber fleet will be phased out with passage of time but they will be replaced by a very capable aircraft that will be large enough to carry massive payload and that too at supersonic speeds.

This program is already in effect in US and it is termed as "FSA".

 

[LeGenD]

Here is a different source about bombers!

LINK: http://www.global-defence.com/2002/air-bombers.html

 

[glyn]

Pure speculation? Possibly, it is only my opinion, as as I am long retired from the service I do not claim to be in the 'information loop' any more.
I am convinced that the days of the manned bomber are coming to an end. The USAF will be using B-52s long after their original designers have all died of old age. However few remain in service, and some of those are in storage. There are less than 100 B-1s in service, and again some are in storage. The B-2 has the shortest production run of any US bomber in decades with about 20 in service, and these were incredibly expensive per unit. The service is bound to look at all options before deciding on a replacement for what is currently in service. They may well fund design studies, but it remains my contention that some form of unmanned aerial vehicle will be the preferred option.

Tanks are more vulnerable today than they ever were in history due to armour defeating warheads and the ability to have missiles strike at the thinnest armour on the turret roof.
Up until 20 years ago I would have said that the best tank destroyer was another tank, but that is no longer so. Having flown around during army exercises I can tell you that tank formations raise considerable dust clouds - or churn up wet ground so much that their positions (and the approaches to them) are very evident. During British Army trials the conclusion was that tanks would lose 33 times out of 34 when pitted against air attack from a combination of anti-tank helicopters and minimal numbers of fixed wing attack aircraft.

Yes, the B-52s carpet bombed in Afghanistan and impressive it undoubtably looked on TV but how effective was it really?

 

[sigatoka]

1. During British Army trials the conclusion was that tanks would lose 33 times out of 34 when pitted against air attack from a combination of anti-tank helicopters and minimal numbers of fixed wing attack aircraft.

2. Yes, the B-52s carpet bombed in Afghanistan and impressive it undoubtably looked on TV but how effective was it really?

1. How is it possible to get a battle tank to shoot down F-16's and helicopters would be very difficult. This is a totally unfair comparision whereby the one's setting up the scenario have biased it so that the air can not fail to win.

A more fair comparision would be that the "tank" force get to spend the dollar value of airassets any way they wish for their ground force against ONLY an air threat. In such a case the entire ground force would be comprised of airdefence units and the air force would face far higher casuaualtiies.

2. Effectivness is not only in what is done (that is how many taliban were killed in bombing) but also in what it prevetns the opponent in doing. The B-52's forced the taliban to disperse (and thus making them easier to pick off in ground engagements). Without such air assets, Western ground forces would have faced opponents numbering hundreds in individual engagments instead of the dozens which is the norm now.

 

[glyn]

1. How is it possible to get a battle tank to shoot down F-16's and helicopters would be very difficult. This is a totally unfair comparision whereby the one's setting up the scenario have biased it so that the air can not fail to win.



It was a study that had to be tested in the field on large scale exercises. Obviously assumptions had to be made - one of which was that the RAF would keep most enemy strike aircraft away from the battlefield area, but allowances were made for the odd one getting through. The helicopter was very effective due to operating at virtually ground level just behind the Forward Line of Own Troops, just popping up to acquire a target and then sink back behind cover. The helicopters never exposed themselves for more than a few seconds at a time and would not pop up in the same place more than once. The area was crawling with umpires and due regard was paid to AAA and SAM defences.



A more fair comparision would be that the "tank" force get to spend the dollar value of airassets any way they wish for their ground force against ONLY an air threat. In such a case the entire ground force would be comprised of airdefence units and the air force would face far higher casuaualtiies.




I see what you are aiming at, but the results of the trials (which went on for months) were emphatically in favour of the helicopter. In those days helicopters were not very good in night conditions and virtually all engagements were in daytime. Nowadays the helicopter can fly and fight by night as well as by day. In fact the balance tilts even more in favour of the helicopter in night operations.



2. Effectivness is not only in what is done (that is how many taliban were killed in bombing) but also in what it prevetns the opponent in doing. The B-52's forced the taliban to disperse (and thus making them easier to pick off in ground engagements). Without such air assets, Western ground forces would have faced opponents numbering hundreds in individual engagments instead of the dozens which is the norm now.

I agree with you entirely on this last paragraph. Also, in the final analysis this was a peacetime trial, not war, but it was felt most useful for future policy studies. The usual caveats apply - you cannot endlessly extrapolate permutations.