"New Bomber Must Navigate Hostile Airspace ..." Topic
4 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Action Log
09 Aug 2015 9:29 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from Modern Media board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article Everything but the rifle teams!
Featured Workbench Article Hundvig  is not a real big fan of pre-painted minis, and he positively despises randomly-packed "collectable" ones - so why is he writing this article?
Featured Profile Article For the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
Current Poll
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
| Tango01 | 02 Aug 2015 9:54 p.m. PST |
…on Capitol Hill. "No matter which company wins the new B-3 bomber deal, the program's advocates will start facing the first of many budget battles before any metal has been bent. U.S. bomber programs have a history of political trouble. The B-1 bomber was a political football in the 1970s and 1980s. The B-2 bomber buy was curtailed from 132 down to 21 after the Cold War ended. Former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates decided in 2009 to kill an earlier version of the B-3 that had been slated to start procurement in 2018. Today, the Air Force has done itself no favors in the political arena by how it has described the new bomber's price tag. The service has said that it expects the planes to cost $550 USD million a copy for 100 planes. Accordingly, most press accounts have referred to the program as a $55 USD billion initiative…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Mako11 | 03 Aug 2015 12:07 p.m. PST |
|
| zoneofcontrol | 03 Aug 2015 7:32 p.m. PST |
Can't they just enlarge the bomb load on the F-35?!? |
| Lion in the Stars | 04 Aug 2015 7:34 p.m. PST |
@Zoneofcontrol: F35 doesn't have the range to replace the B1 and B52. The FB22 would be a better bet than the F35, just give the FB22 two of the F35's engines. Might get you to ~16,000lbs internal. But even the smallest Strategic bomber the US flies can haul 50,000lbs of bombs. I think a reasonable idea would be a heavily modified YF23 design, with the forward fuselage enlarged enough to hold a single Common Strategic Rotary Launcher (~24,000lbs capacity). And again, using the same engines as the F35, because they're even more powerful than the ones on the F22. |
|
