When to start building the B3?

[Henry J. Cobb]

There will be a B3 manned heavy bomber.

The mission is not going away.

The big question is will the United States be able to build a bomber
that is a big enough improvement on the B2 to justify the development
before we run out of heavy bombers?

I think the answer is yes.

The big improvement of the B3 on the B2 is going to be the use of
woven nanotube construction in place of carbon fiber. It will be
larger, stronger and no heavier.

The crew expands to four. They take turns flying to and from the
battlefield and while on station one crewmember flies the bomber while
the other three operate sensors and UAVs.

The first B3s should enter service in the early 2020s. At a low level
of production they be able to take over as the primary heavy bomber in
2037 when the B52s and B1s are falling apart.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-3.htm

-HJC

[Paul Austin]

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote
> There will be a B3 manned heavy bomber.
>
> The mission is not going away.
>
> The big question is will the United States be able to build a bomber
> that is a big enough improvement on the B2 to justify the
development
> before we run out of heavy bombers?
>
> I think the answer is yes.
>
> The big improvement of the B3 on the B2 is going to be the use of
> woven nanotube construction in place of carbon fiber. It will be
> larger, stronger and no heavier.
>
> The crew expands to four. They take turns flying to and from the
> battlefield and while on station one crewmember flies the bomber
while
> the other three operate sensors and UAVs.
>
> The first B3s should enter service in the early 2020s. At a low
level
> of production they be able to take over as the primary heavy bomber
in
> 2037 when the B52s and B1s are falling apart.

There's this problem. Nanotube-stiffened composites have a_long_way to
go before anyone would use them for primary structure. The nanotubes
themselves are gleams in folks eyes and based on carbon fiber
composite experience, there will be a fairly long learning experience
before they are ready for prime time.

It's not plain to me that there_needs_to be an aircraft with much more
payload to structure weight than a B2. Building a B2C with the reduced
maintenance/cost stealth features of the F35 seems more like the way
to go. Even that would require essentially a fresh start procurement
with new subs bidding all the pieces.

[Tiger]

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote:

> There will be a B3 manned heavy bomber.
>
> The mission is not going away.
>
> The big question is will the United States be able to build a bomber
> that is a big enough improvement on the B2 to justify the development
> before we run out of heavy bombers?
>
> I think the answer is yes.
>
> The big improvement of the B3 on the B2 is going to be the use of
> woven nanotube construction in place of carbon fiber. It will be
> larger, stronger and no heavier.
>
> The crew expands to four. They take turns flying to and from the
> battlefield and while on station one crewmember flies the bomber while
> the other three operate sensors and UAVs.
>
> The first B3s should enter service in the early 2020s. At a low level
> of production they be able to take over as the primary heavy bomber in
> 2037 when the B52s and B1s are falling apart.
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-3.htm
>
> -HJC

A B3 is not going to do any good for a guy taking sniper fire on a Bagdad
street corner!
We need basics, not more gizzmos. The budget will be stretched just
buying f22's & f35's.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
m...
> Tuesday.
>
> Crap, no, I've got a doctor's appointment. Let's start Wednesday.

A proctologist to help you pull your head out, Bill?

[BOB URZ]

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote:

> There will be a B3 manned heavy bomber.
>
> The mission is not going away.
>
> The big question is will the United States be able to build a bomber
> that is a big enough improvement on the B2 to justify the development
> before we run out of heavy bombers?
>
> I think the answer is yes.
>
> The big improvement of the B3 on the B2 is going to be the use of
> woven nanotube construction in place of carbon fiber. It will be
> larger, stronger and no heavier.
>
> The crew expands to four. They take turns flying to and from the
> battlefield and while on station one crewmember flies the bomber while
> the other three operate sensors and UAVs.
>
> The first B3s should enter service in the early 2020s. At a low level
> of production they be able to take over as the primary heavy bomber in
> 2037 when the B52s and B1s are falling apart.
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-3.htm
>
> -HJC

Well, the US bought hundreds of B52's
Maybe a 100 B1's or so.
20 some B1's
So, maybe the US could afford 5 or so B3's?
And only if the warp drive is perfected by then.
And the B4? maybe one would do.

The USAF should contract with Ron Popeil for
a B-Bomb o Matic. Only 3000 easy payments of
$49.95.

BOB



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Fred B]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Henry J. Cobb" wrote:
>
> > There will be a B3 manned heavy bomber.
> >
> > The mission is not going away.
> >
> > The big question is will the United States be able to build a bomber
> > that is a big enough improvement on the B2 to justify the development
> > before we run out of heavy bombers?
> >
> > I think the answer is yes.
> >
> > The big improvement of the B3 on the B2 is going to be the use of
> > woven nanotube construction in place of carbon fiber. It will be
> > larger, stronger and no heavier.
> >
> > The crew expands to four. They take turns flying to and from the
> > battlefield and while on station one crewmember flies the bomber while
> > the other three operate sensors and UAVs.
> >
> > The first B3s should enter service in the early 2020s. At a low level
> > of production they be able to take over as the primary heavy bomber in
> > 2037 when the B52s and B1s are falling apart.
> >
> > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-3.htm
> >
> > -HJC
>
> A B3 is not going to do any good for a guy taking sniper fire on a Bagdad
> street corner!

And the fix for the guy taking sniper fire on a Bagdad street corner is not
going to do anything for the cruise missile fired from an offshore gunboat!
DUH! How meaningless can a response possibly get? I could never have
guessed.
Wait...a whole new genre of criticism is here:
"Fixed a dislocated shoulder will not do anything for an ovarian cyst."
"Changing the transmission fluid is not going to get the CD player
working."
"Changing the baby's diaper is not going to address the fact that he's
stopped breathing."

Well, you get the idea. (Good freaking grief!)

> We need basics, not more gizzmos. The budget will be stretched just buying
f22's & f35's.

I see. The military cannot solve more than one problem at a time. It's A OR
B, but C, D, E, F, G - Z must be totally ignored. (Rolling eyes and
groaning)

[[email protected]]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote:

>
>"Fred B" > wrote in message
...
>|
>
>| "Changing the baby's diaper is not going to address the fact that he's
>| stopped breathing."
>|
>
>
>Dunno Fred, I've stopped breathing while doing that.
>
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Dave Kearton
>
>
Jesus yes...how tough must the little buggers be to survive
within a foot or so of those unholy messes?...how can it possibly
smell so BAD?...
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message

>> "Dave Kearton" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Fred B" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> "Changing the baby's diaper is not going to address the fact
>>>> that he's stopped breathing."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dunno Fred, I've stopped breathing while doing that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Dave Kearton
>>>
>>>
>> Jesus yes...how tough must the little buggers be to survive
>> within a foot or so of those unholy messes?...how can it possibly
>> smell so BAD?...
>
>I have a 6-month-old, I'm a stay at home dad and I ask myself that question
>EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I commiserate with you...I raised four of the little urchins and
still marvel that such sweet little darlins can produce such
absolutely overpowering aromas...even looking back over the
elapsed sixty some years since my olfactory organs were so
horrendously assaulted the memory is sharp and clear. I guess we
were just paying our dues for the privilege of spending the rest
of our lives worrying about them and their's. Such is life I
guess.
--

-Gord.

[Bill Silvey]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message

> "Bill Silvey" > wrote:
>
>> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Dave Kearton" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Fred B" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Changing the baby's diaper is not going to address the fact
>>>>> that he's stopped breathing."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dunno Fred, I've stopped breathing while doing that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Dave Kearton
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Jesus yes...how tough must the little buggers be to survive
>>> within a foot or so of those unholy messes?...how can it possibly
>>> smell so BAD?...
>>
>> I have a 6-month-old, I'm a stay at home dad and I ask myself that
>> question EVERY SINGLE DAY.
>
> I commiserate with you...I raised four of the little urchins and
> still marvel that such sweet little darlins can produce such
> absolutely overpowering aromas...even looking back over the
> elapsed sixty some years since my olfactory organs were so
> horrendously assaulted the memory is sharp and clear. I guess we
> were just paying our dues for the privilege of spending the rest
> of our lives worrying about them and their's. Such is life I
> guess.

....and to bring this back on topic, slightly, frequently she *is* a "stealth
bomber", if you know what I mean.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Paul Austin"
> wrote:

> "The Enlightenment" wrote
> >
> > "Paul Austin" wrote
> > >
> > > "Henry J. Cobb" wrote
> > > > There will be a B3 manned heavy bomber.
> > > There's this problem. Nanotube-stiffened composites have
> a_long_way to
> > > go before anyone would use them for primary structure. The
> nanotubes
> > > themselves are gleams in folks eyes and based on carbon fiber
> > > composite experience, there will be a fairly long learning
> experience
> > > before they are ready for prime time.
> >
> > last time I heard just plain (not even woven) nanotube was
> $2300/gram.
>
> <choke> and I thought space-grade stuff was expensive. The price will
> come down as we learn to make them in industrial quantities but I
> still don't see a pressing need to substantially lighter primary
> structure in a bomb-truck.

It's only money for fuel and range limitations.

The lighter you can make the primary structure, the less power
it takes to fly your weapons. Better fuel fraction, less fuel used,
less $$, better range.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Pete]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote
>
> ...and to bring this back on topic, slightly, frequently she *is* a
"stealth
> bomber", if you know what I mean.
>

Dropping "nuclear waste".

It *is* that hazardous.

Pete

[Paul Austin]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul Austin"
> > wrote:
>
> > "The Enlightenment" wrote
> > >
> > > "Paul Austin" wrote
> > > >
> > > > "Henry J. Cobb" wrote
> > > > > There will be a B3 manned heavy bomber.
> > > > There's this problem. Nanotube-stiffened composites have
> > a_long_way to
> > > > go before anyone would use them for primary structure. The
> > nanotubes
> > > > themselves are gleams in folks eyes and based on carbon fiber
> > > > composite experience, there will be a fairly long learning
> > experience
> > > > before they are ready for prime time.
> > >
> > > last time I heard just plain (not even woven) nanotube was
> > $2300/gram.
> >
> > <choke> and I thought space-grade stuff was expensive. The price
will
> > come down as we learn to make them in industrial quantities but I
> > still don't see a pressing need to substantially lighter primary
> > structure in a bomb-truck.
>
> It's only money for fuel and range limitations.
>
> The lighter you can make the primary structure, the less power
> it takes to fly your weapons. Better fuel fraction, less fuel used,
> less $$, better range.

That's true but... Tell me again how a lighter weight airframe is
going to deliver more_military utility_than you can currently buy with
a B-2. Spirits are already miracles of load-carrying effciency and
with the advent of the Small Diameter Bomb, it's difficult to see how
a larger payload will be much more useful.

As far as "less fuel used, less $$, better range" is concerned, fuel
cost is a tiny fraction of the life cycle cost of a heavy and as for
range, B-2s are already flying missions that strain crew endurance.

Substantially lighter airframes are going to be_very_expensive to
develop. You have to balance those costs against marginal improvements
in fuel consumption (since you aren't going to build a single-engined
heavy bomber).

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Paul Austin"
> wrote:

> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Paul Austin"
> > > wrote:

> > > > > > There will be a B3 manned heavy bomber.
> > > > > There's this problem. Nanotube-stiffened composites have
> > > a_long_way to
> > > > > go before anyone would use them for primary structure. The
> > > nanotubes
> > > > > themselves are gleams in folks eyes and based on carbon fiber
> > > > > composite experience, there will be a fairly long learning
> > > experience
> > > > > before they are ready for prime time.
> > > >
> > > > last time I heard just plain (not even woven) nanotube was
> > > $2300/gram.
> > >
> > > <choke> and I thought space-grade stuff was expensive. The price
> will
> > > come down as we learn to make them in industrial quantities but I
> > > still don't see a pressing need to substantially lighter primary
> > > structure in a bomb-truck.
> >
> > It's only money for fuel and range limitations.
> >
> > The lighter you can make the primary structure, the less power
> > it takes to fly your weapons. Better fuel fraction, less fuel used,
> > less $$, better range.
>
> That's true but... Tell me again how a lighter weight airframe is
> going to deliver more_military utility_than you can currently buy with
> a B-2. Spirits are already miracles of load-carrying effciency and
> with the advent of the Small Diameter Bomb, it's difficult to see how
> a larger payload will be much more useful.

That's true, however, if you postulate the need for a new airframe
(mythical B-3) then there's no reason to stick with outdated
construction materials/techniques. The B-2 works well for 70/80's
technology.

>
> As far as "less fuel used, less $$, better range" is concerned, fuel
> cost is a tiny fraction of the life cycle cost of a heavy and as for
> range, B-2s are already flying missions that strain crew endurance.

I would dispute this, although I have few figures to back it up.
Fuel costs are high on all military aircraft, and are getting higher.
Fuel costs vs LCC for heavies is misleading because the heavies sit
a lot more than tacair assets. In addition, all the assets
for air refueling that support the heavies are lumped in a different
bucket and not considered part of their LCC.


> Substantially lighter airframes are going to be_very_expensive to
> develop. You have to balance those costs against marginal improvements
> in fuel consumption (since you aren't going to build a single-engined
> heavy bomber).

It's never too early to plan, and it's never too early to conserve resources.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[The Enlightenment]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message >...
> "Paul Austin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Henry J. Cobb" wrote
> > > There will be a B3 manned heavy bomber.
> > There's this problem. Nanotube-stiffened composites have a_long_way to
> > go before anyone would use them for primary structure. The nanotubes
> > themselves are gleams in folks eyes and based on carbon fiber
> > composite experience, there will be a fairly long learning experience
> > before they are ready for prime time.
>
> last time I heard just plain (not even woven) nanotube was $2300/gram.


The impetus seems to be their use as electrical capacitors with energy
densities matching batteries but with much longer lives, efficienies
and discharge rates. They would be so light and strong that space
elevators to geostationary satelites would be possible.

In a maganzine on genetic engineering I saw once there was conjecture
about growing complicated structures out of geneticaly engineered
bone.

There was a fancy artwork showing a car chasis emerging from a
nourishing broth.

I don't think it is too far fetched. If nature can grow a human skull
or a bird skeleton we may be able to engineer complet structures
including aircraft wings oir complete blended wing bodies made of
hollow 'bone' and grow them out of a broth of nutrients.