SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The US Department of Defense has announced that Northrup Grumman will be supplying its next generation of Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) to replace the aging B-52 and B-2 fleets.
"Over the past century, no nation has used air power to accomplish its global reach -- to compress time and space -- like the United States," said Defense Secretary Ash Carter
"Building this bomber is a strategic investment in the next 50 years, and represents our aggressive commitment to a strong and balanced force. It demonstrates our commitment to our allies and our determination to potential adversaries, making it crystal clear that the United States will continue to retain the ability to project power throughout the globe long into the future."
The first prototypes of the new bomber won't take to the skies until 2025 at the earliest, and is unlikely to be operational for years after that. But it's going to be packed with the latest technology to shield it from ever-smarter missiles and other weapons systems.
...
Like the B-2, it will be using radar-absorbing materials and high-tech weapons. Directed-energy anti-missile technology has been touted for the aircraft by some analysts, as has the ability to carry electronic payloads that could disrupt enemy computer systems.
Yes, Ye Children of Slashdot, this one will have frickin' laser beams.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday October 30 2015, @10:50PM
The B-52 does need replacement - the airframes are positively ancient, and won't be airworthy forever. The design was good for the time, but we could do considerably better now (particularly the engines). It fills a very useful role, though, and should not be removed from service without a true replacement.
So why not just build a B-52 replacement? No stealth, no cutting edge features. Just a basic bomb truck with upgraded engines and avionics. Face it, we're not going to war with Russia or China. We're gonna be bombing Syria, Iraq, and who knows what other country full of brown skinned people.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fnj on Saturday October 31 2015, @03:12AM
Absolutely, but take it further. Why the hell not just fire up a production line and build more B-52s. Stick super efficient turbofans on them, 4 large ones instead of 8 tiny ones. Up-to-date avionics of course. Obviously there would be no reason for a crew of any more than 2, as opposed to the 4 or 5 of the original. Other than that, there is absolutely zero reason to change anything. The airframe and wings are just fine with 1950s design and materials. Look how long they have already performed. Maybe the aluminum alloy would be an improved grade, or maybe not; the riveted original has proved itself.
Engines and avionics aside, the 1950s B-52 is an almost perfect solution to its mission. Heck, the same is true of the DC-3. And the C-130. And the A-10 Warthog. Stop fucking around spending vast treasure trying (and failing) to improve on perfection. Arguably, air superiority fighters are the exception to this rule - although the F-14 and F-15 of the 1970s were both much faster than the F-35. (To be fair, the F-35 is not an air superiority fighter; it is just being forced into that role; we are trying to make due without a follow-on to the F-22)
Another thought. What the heck is a bomber anyway, but a cargo plane you can dump the cargo out of in mid-air? Since WW2 they have never been used to penetrate the defenses of a capable opponent. There are standoff missiles for that. Given air supremacy and fighter escort, plus countermeasures, a 747 or other big-box cargo plane, modified with opening doors in the bottom and unpressurized in the main section, could drop dumb bombs and JDAMs just as well as a B-2. In fact it could carry a hell of a lot more weight and count of bombs.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Saturday October 31 2015, @07:33PM
Because the production lines were shuttered before most of us were even born. The tooling is long gone, and even the factory building itself is now shut down (it had been producing 767s and the related KC-46s). They may not even have production blueprints anymore (only maintenance blueprints).
So resuming production would require a massive investment in infrastructure. It would literally be just as hard to start making new B-52s as it would be to start producing any other aircraft of that size. The B-52 may as well be a Tu-95, as far as our ability to resume production goes.
Given that scale of investment, it makes sense to go ahead and redesign the airframe. I do not expect massive gains - the only real advantage of modern technology here is the ability to run a massive amount of simulations on computer, rather than building dozens of models and wind-tunnel testing them. But hey, even a 5% win at the design stage is certainly worth the miniscule investment in the redesign, probably on the order of the cost of one or two aircraft.