Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

hcobb wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

It is a dual purpose gun

This. Using hcobb's reasoning, the F-4 shouldn't have performed any strafing runs in Viet Nam because it uses a lower-caliber gun-- and yet, it did.

Against the massive tank battalions of the Vietcong? Very Happy

We had something called a BGM-71A TOW for that one Wink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrN_LkGNqII

F-16.net Sponsor

Next gen bomber? Well I would love to see a 4xF119 engined supercruising bomber I just can't see it being build in numbers. But, 4xF135 engines and a 1.6 mach dash speed maybe. I'm thinking a B-2 with a wing sweep just high enough for supersonic speed. Good high subsonic cruise and mach dash speed. A cross between a F-35 and a B2. We already have the engines and we could even give the thing the F-35's sensers and helmet. Just my 0.02 TSFG

We need a bomber in 2040 that can skip in and out of the atmosphere to conserve energy in performing orbital maneuvers and then make it be powered by a turbine-based combined cycle engine that will allow good efficiency in all flight regimes. It should be able to deploy nuclear bombs in less than an hour too upon takeoff.

tacf-x wrote:

We need a bomber in 2040 that can skip in and out of the atmosphere to conserve energy in performing orbital maneuvers and then make it be powered by a turbine-based combined cycle engine that will allow good efficiency in all flight regimes. It should be able to deploy nuclear bombs in less than an hour too upon takeoff.

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but that would be very cool. Cool

I'd still expect TSFG's quad-engine neo-B-1/B-2/F-35 thing to be (far) more likely, but that's definitely an...interesting idea.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/usw ... rsoar.html

This is what I'm talking about.

I love the hypersonic idea, but don't think we would ever see it in large numbers. Only maybe 20 like the B-2. IMO, we need at least 50 or 100 of these new bombers. More if we can get them. You know...enough for a war. TSFG

Quote:

I know how it is, baby. Tell you what you do: you just start your countdown, and old Bucky'll be back here before you can say "Blast off!"

Old SAC bomber motto:

"Piece is our profession."

(I think I spelled that right.)

tacf-x wrote:

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/bombers/hypersoar.html

This is what I'm talking about.

Yeah...

At that point, you're better off using disposable missiles. I can't imagine a bigger money pit than a hypersonic wave-riding super-bomber.

The F119 would probably be a fine motor for the job if supercruise is important, but why go four engines and not cut it back to two or three?

outlaw162 wrote:

Quote:

I know how it is, baby. Tell you what you do: you just start your countdown, and old Bucky'll be back here before you can say "Blast off!"

Old SAC bomber motto:

"Piece is our profession."

(I think I spelled that right.)

Right!

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

What will USAF really end up doing about bombers?