NationStates Jolt Archive

--Excerpt from a Washington Post article--
Today, Lockheed announced the restart of the B-3 project, which was an attempt to design a replacement for the B-52 and B-1 bombers. It had been shuttered after the Collapse, but, with the growing strength of the Beltway Security Force and its recent purchase of foreign bombers from Juumanistra, Lockheed decided to restart the project. It has already secured the support of an arms manufacturer in the Allied Union of Velkya, and is offering joint export and production rights to any other corporations that choose to assist in development of the B-3.
CEO and President of Lockheed Robert J. Stevens said, "We've been out of the business of building bombers for a while, but we're jumping back in with the B-3. We just need a little help to make certain our design will be up to Lockheed standards."
--End of Excerpt--

Unless this B-3 is the same B-3 I'm talking about, there is already a B-3 project in existance, designed to replace the B-2 beginning in 2037.

OOC - That's the exact project; it got shuttered with the Collapse in the world of The Beltway. To be more accurate, we're restarting this project; I've edited the opening post to reflect that.

Unless this B-3 is the same B-3 I'm talking about, there is already a B-3 project in existance, designed to replace the B-2 beginning in 2037.

Actually, according to Global Security, it is intended to complement it. The B-3 might evolve into a Regional Bomber but that might just stay seperate in the near future. It is suppose to be a Mach 2+ bomber, that's not replacing the B-2.

It will complement the B-2 Spirit for a few years, but by 2050 it's expected that the B-3 will have completely replaced the B-2. It would be unrealistic to think that the B-3 can suddenly replace all B-2s that same year, and the B-2 is not an aircraft to simply be scrapped, but at some point the B-3 will have replaced the B-1, B-2 and B-52. This graph I got from fas, but it's the same graph from globalsecurity.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/b-3-2.gif

It will complement the B-2 Spirit for a few years, but by 2050 it's expected that the B-3 will have completely replaced the B-2. It would be unrealistic to think that the B-3 can suddenly replace all B-2s that same year, and the B-2 is not an aircraft to simply be scrapped, but at some point the B-3 will have replaced the B-1, B-2 and B-52. This graph I got from fas, but it's the same graph from globalsecurity.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/b-3-2.gif

It doesn't seem that a Mach 2 bomber would replace a stealth bomber. They are two different roles. That is why I don't think that it will replace the B-2, but instead complement it while it replaces the B-1 and B-52.

The B-3 is transonic, meaning despite capabilities of going supersonic, which the B-2 has as well, it doesn't necessarilly need to do so. In fact, if you fully read the article in global security the B-3 project also includes the research and usage of low-observable technologies, meaning the B-3 is also designed with stealth in mind. In fact, stealth technologies are vastly similar to those of the JSF project, since they are 'off the shelf' technologies - in other words, widly used technologies on other American aircraft. The B-3 is designed to be a superior bomber to the B-2 where it would have a longer range, be more affordable, and still have the stealth and velocity capabilities for deep penetration strikes.

The B-3 is transonic, meaning despite capabilities of going supersonic, which the B-2 has as well, it doesn't necessarilly need to do so. In fact, if you fully read the article in global security the B-3 project also includes the research and usage of low-observable technologies, meaning the B-3 is also designed with stealth in mind. In fact, stealth technologies are vastly similar to those of the JSF project, since they are 'off the shelf' technologies - in other words, widly used technologies on other American aircraft. The B-3 is designed to be a superior bomber to the B-2 where it would have a longer range, be more affordable, and still have the stealth and velocity capabilities for deep penetration strikes.

I did read the article, but it seems that I must have read the FAS.org one not the Global Security one, where it states that it will be a Mach 2+ bomber.

The two articles are exactly the same, except that globalsecurity has an excerpt on future aircraft capabilities below the main article. In any case, the bomber has the capability to reach Mach 2, but that being a cruise velocity, not necessarilly a strike velocity. The B-3 will have transonic capabilities. Globalsecurity, in the excerpt, also gives hints towards a transatmospheric bomber, although that would be something like the Hypersoar.

The two articles are exactly the same, except that globalsecurity has an excerpt on future aircraft capabilities below the main article. In any case, the bomber has the capability to reach Mach 2, but that being a cruise velocity, not necessarilly a strike velocity. The B-3 will have transonic capabilities. Globalsecurity, in the excerpt, also gives hints towards a transatmospheric bomber, although that would be something like the Hypersoar.

If it is going at Mach 2, than exactly how is it going to be stealthy? Stealth paint tends to wear off at around that speed, I believe. Unless there not using RAM.

RAM isn't 'stealth paint' anyways. RAM is a foam that is built in different shapes to absorb different frequencies of radio waves. Nevertheless, low obserbavles mean building the airframe in different angles - mostly, researching variations to Brewster's angle. But again, the aircraft is transonic, which means that it will be able to accelerate when it needs to cruise quickly, and deccelerate when it's runing over a hostile enviroment, for a deep penetration operation. More likely, however, the bomber will be used in operations such as those we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, where complete stealth really isn't necessary at all. In fact, most of our advances are not tailored around 'what if we went to war with a nation with our potential', it's tailored around what is most cost effective for a war against guerillas.

OOC: Let's not hijack his thread. Remember, no one else has built the B-3 in NS (to my knowledge), so it's really fair game to designate it as such. And assuming The Beltway is a modern tech nation, he shouldn't hit 2037 in his tech's lifespan, which leaves room for devolpment.

OOC - And since the B-3 is currently nothing more than a concept, I figure I have more than enough room for this thread. I am MT/low-level PMT (Baltimore Shipyards is designing and building a dreadnought, MoCoAutSys sells fully-autonomous systems, and Lockheed markets a design that can include carbon nanotubes; make of it what you will), so we haven't yet reached 2037.

OOC: Well, since we'll be devolping a bomber that can replace the B-52 (a hulking carpet bomber) and the B-2 (a stealthy penetration aircraft), as well as the B-1, which is basically a cross between the two. I suggest first finding a suitable stealth system to work with as our first priority.