US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Brumby

Major
The PGS SR72 would take off from the continental U.S. Lets say Edwards AFB in Nevada. It would achieve operational altitude just past the California coast. It's altitude would be at the very edge of LEO its track would be along a orbital path. It would deploy it's weapons well still over the Indian ocean thousands of miles from there targets along a precise entry and trajectory. The PGS SR72 would be deploying attacks with the weapon following a sub orbital path. The weapon would bypass enemy defenses by dropping from space as such tasking would have to be done in advance.
TE,
Do you have a reference source describing the PGS SR72 program? I am aware of the PGS and SR72 programs but to my knowledge they are separate programs with different objectives. The nature of the program as a combined program is not something that to my understanding actually exist.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
It's a bit of a leap on my part, Equation was asking about using a SR72 as a bomber.
They can always make the SR-72 as a heavy strike bomber, money pending of course.
Because of the Way SR72 is conceptualized If it were to become a bomber It would instantly fall into PGS.
The SR72 Program as designed already barrows a lot from the X51 and other PGS elements. Making it a step sibling of sorts.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The mission is needed brat, 75 year old B52s are harder to justify as they move closer to the century mark. And B1 is respectable but numbers and needs.
A fighter bomber is nice but they can't pack the bomb load of a bomber.

Exactly right my friend, necessary no doubt about it.
For FB-22 finished no money now sure would have been the successor of the F-111.

With A2A Defenses which increase ( S-300 now 400 etc .. ) only a new can going inside a no permissive area with a more powerful load, bombs.

B-52 in this area can't going inside too dangerous then use LACM to long range, a new Stealth Bomber do better can going inside with 15/20 t of bombs more powerful as LACM which are also more expensives, rare, with stock clearly more small.
 
Last edited:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Artist renderings of the USAF B-21

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It's an image that is being picked apart by military aviation experts around the world. The first official drawing of the U.S. Air Force's B-21 bomber.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James unveiled the artist rendering Friday based on the initial design concept.

Black, sleek, with swept-back wings and stealthy design make this aircraft look a lot like another famous bomber — the B-2 Spirit.

James seemed to hint at that during her announcement. "The B-21 has been designed from the beginning based on a set of requirements that allows the use of existing and mature technology," she said at the Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida.

At first glance, the drawing seems basic. But make no mistake, aviation geeks and America's military competitors will be picking it apart for clues to learn more about this very expensive and powerful weapons system. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and just about anyone in the world involved in developing advanced stealth technology will look at this drawing for any indication of where U.S. design is headed.

So... what will the Air Force call this new bomber? James said the name will be up to the men and women of the Air Force. Leaders of the bomber program will be considering name suggestions from airmen, she said. The bomber's name will be announced at an Air Force conference scheduled in the fall.

Until now the B-21 has been referred to as the Long Range Strike Bomber because it will be designed to launch from the U.S. and strike any target around the globe.

When Northrop Grumman won the contract to build the B-21 last year, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said it will allow the U.S. to "project power across the globe now and into the future," calling it a "strategic investment for the next 50 years."

Long term, the idea is for these planes to replace Air Force B-52 bombers, which have been flying for more than half a century -- and eventually the B-1 bombers, when they retire sometime in the 2040s.

Related story: Pentagon awards Long range stealth bomber contract

Engineering and development costs are estimated at $21.4 billion (in 2010 dollars) over the entire life of the program.

Officials have been tight-lipped as to the specific capability expectations for the LRS-B, but indications are that it will be stealthy, able to carry conventional and nuclear weapons and could possibly operate with or without a pilot.

The Air Force said it plans to start testing the plane sometime in the mid-2020s.

CNN's Barbara Starr and Zachary Cohen contributed to this report.
 
scary in several ways:
Admiral: Time is running out to begin updating nukes
In describing how little room the Pentagon has to extend the life of its decades-old nuclear forces, the top U.S. nuclear war-fighting commander, Navy Adm. Cecil Haney, says "we're at the brick wall stage."

Time to begin modernizing the country's nuclear weapons is running short, he and other Pentagon leaders say. They contend the force is still in fighting shape — "safe, reliable and effective" is the official mantra. But they also argue the time has come to begin modernizing the force or risk eroding its credibility as a deterrent to attack by others.

They don't face brick wall-like resistance in Congress, but the debate over spending hundreds of billions of dollars to build and field a new generation of nuclear-capable bombers, submarines and land-based missiles is just beginning.

Critics say full-scale modernization is neither affordable nor necessary.

The debate is influenced not only by the perceived need to fully replace aging weapons but also by worries about North Korea's nuclear ambitions and concern over what Defense Secretary Ash Carter calls Russia's "nuclear sabre-rattling."

Robert Work, the deputy secretary of defense, said the Pentagon will need an estimated $18 billion a year between 2021 and 2035 to modernize the three "legs" of the U.S. nuclear triad — weapons capable of being launched from land, sea and air.

"We need to replace these," Work said. "We can't delay this anymore."

The enormous sums needed are at risk of getting squeezed by high-priority requirements for non-nuclear, conventional weapons. And Work's numbers don't include the billions that would be needed to modernize the nuclear warheads on the business end of missiles and bombs.

"Modernization now is not an option" — it must happen, Haney, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, said in an interview on Friday, just hours after watching a test launch of an unarmed Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM. The Minuteman, which has been on constant 24-hour alert since 1970, has long surpassed its 10-year life expectancy.

Haney said the U.S. stockpile of nuclear warheads is the oldest it has ever been. As head of Strategic Command he is the military's top nuclear war-fighter.

"We have to realize we can't extend things forever," Haney said, noting that the Navy is planning to replace its aging Ohio-class ballistic nuclear missile submarines, while the Air Force intends to build a new nuclear-capable bomber to replace the B-52.

Work said that although the Pentagon is closely monitoring Russia's nuclear modernization, which includes development of new versions of its ICBMs, those moves are not driving U.S. decisions about how quickly and broadly it should modernize its nuclear forces.

Some private analysts, however, see the U.S. and Russia entering a new arms competition.

"It's disturbing how quickly both the United States and Russia are sliding back toward the Cold War, both rhetorically and operationally," said Stephen Schwartz, an independent nuclear policy analyst and author.

"Worse still, both the United States and Russia are now using each other's nuclear programs and military activities to justify and rationalize their own," he added.

Haney and Work both were present Thursday night for the Minuteman 3 test launch, which was the second such test of the year. Work said Friday that the test was successful, with the missile's payload landing within a targeted area of water near Kwajalein Atoll in the south Pacific. He said it was the eighth consecutive successful Minuteman test launch, which would mean the last unsuccessful test was in December 2013, according to a chronology provided by the Air Force.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
really?
Hypersonic missiles could be operational in 2020s, general says
Hypersonic missiles could be here faster than you know it.

By 2020, the Air Force is likely to have operational prototypes ready for a program of record and testing to develop an operational unit, said Maj. Gen. Thomas Masiello, the commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory.

By the 2030s, the technology could have expanded beyond delivering warheads at speeds faster than sound to also include hypersonic intelligence and reconnaissance flights, he said.

The Air Force, Masiello said is focusing on “deliberate, incremental progress towards maturing this technology.”

“We’re looking for more singles, base hits, versus trying to go for a home run,” he said.

Speaking at the Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida., Masiello described the efforts the service is undertaking to develop engines that could travel at or above the widely accepted hypersonic range of Mach 5.

Between 2010 and 2013, the Air Force conducted four flights of the X-51, an experimental hypersonic cruise missile. The first and fourth flights were considered a success, but the engine failed to ignite in the second test flight, and a stabilizing fin broke off during the third flight.

Masiello said that the failures were more informative than the successes in figuring out what to do next and how to advance the technology.

“You have to build an environment that allows failure, because if you don’t, you’re not going to be pushing the boundaries of technology,” he said.

America has already developed hypersonic technology, most famously in the X-15 experimental test plane that saw operation in the 1960s.

Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke, ret., the former commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory, lamented the fact that hypersonic research largely came to a halt when the X-15 was retired.

“We dropped everything and moved to something else and we lost our momentum,” he said.

The Air Force should focus on developing hypersonic missiles to match those being researched by Russia and China, Bedke said. Though a hypersonic manned combat aircraft would grab headlines, it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon and could detrimentally take funds away from development of hypersonic missiles.

“It may not sound as cool as coming up with a grand vision and then throwing money at it, but it’s how were’ going to get there,” he said. “Hypersonic capabilities are inevitable, they are going to happen. If they don’t happen in the United States, they will happen in other countries first.”

Hypersonic munitions “hold much potential for addressing some of our key capabilities gaps,” said retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, head of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He added that the current science suggests “it’s time to transition this capability into the operational realm.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Brumby

Major
It's a bit of a leap on my part, Equation was asking about using a SR72 as a bomber.

Because of the Way SR72 is conceptualized If it were to become a bomber It would instantly fall into PGS.
The SR72 Program as designed already barrows a lot from the X51 and other PGS elements. Making it a step sibling of sorts.
Thanks for clarifying as I missed Equation's earlier comments. Even if the SR72 is conceptualised as a bomber, I don't think it would fall into the PGS conceptual framework because the requirement of the PGS program is to meet time sensitive targets measured in very limited hours. The present thinking with the PGS is to use long range ballistic missiles as the delivery platform and hyper sonic glide vehicle for the terminal guide phase. Using the SR72 as an orbital platform will fall into LRSB territory and I doubt there is money to duplicate such efforts.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
PGS is not quite that one track, they have a few concepts in it including Rods From God, Hypersonic glide vehicles off ballistic missile, conventional warhead Ballistic missiles and likely other ideas as well. The goal is a strike anywhere in the world in an hour or less. Given the speed of the SR72 concept and its range, it would fall closer to the PGS then LRSB.
As LRSB is far more conventional a vehicle concept.
 
Top