FB-23

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
495
Reaction score
1
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
What would make sense is if we got more such 5th generation aircraft regardless of our relations with China, but then again I don't have that brilliant DC mindset.
One need only substitute "5th generation aircraft" with "nuclear weapons" and the validity of the original argument is shown.

Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, said a famous writer called Santiana. We did have the best and most bombers in the 50's, but that only forced the other side to up the ante with nuclear missiles.

Lets also not forget that the Secretary of US Defense is a Republican. I am sure he would have backed up the FB-23 if that's what was needed in 2020.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
622
Reaction score
5
Stargazer2006 said:
Yeah. That is, unless that's the time they come up with that rabbit in the hat, a new secret bomber they've been secretly evaluating for several years and that is now ready to enter full-fledged operational status...
I hope there are such black projects out there but sadly I don't think things run that way anymore. Experimental programs for sure, but a real B-3, I doubt it.

lantinian said:
One need only substitute "5th generation aircraft" with "nuclear weapons" and the validity of the original argument is shown.

Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it, said a famous writer called Santiana. We did have the best and most bombers in the 50's, but that only forced the other side to up the ante with nuclear missiles.

Lets also not forget that the Secretary of US Defense is a Republican. I am sure he would have backed up the FB-23 if that's what was needed in 2020.
Wait so are you saying we should have never procured our bomber fleet in the 1950s and 1960s because the Russians developed their ICBMs as a result? I see no reason why the USSR wouldn't have continued development of such nuclear weapons anyway. Military development and procurement is not historically a mistake, and if the F-22, F-35, and something like the FB-23 help prevent anybody from challenging the USAF, they have done their job. "If you want peace, prepare for war" and all of that.

And Gates being a Republican hasn't made him very friendly to the USAF at all.
 

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
495
Reaction score
1
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
Wait so are you saying we should have never procured our bomber fleet in the 1950s and 1960s because the Russians developed their ICBMs as a result?
No, as that was part of the "We will not negotiate with the comunists and will keep them at bay with military force until their society changes" long term strategy. Whether that was the best strategy to whether down the USSR is another matter entirely. I do however think that forcible treats to the US require a different approach than the FB-23 bomber class aircraft.

The US relationship with with China now is very different to that with the USSR in the 50's. Planing to build such an advanced attack aircraft can only be interpreted as the US trying to keep the "bomb China with impunity" option open. In today economically interconnected world, that's the last thing you want to do to the country that houses your own manufacturing facilities for many goods.
I think US government sees that. I think that the time of the "purely bomber, regardless of cost solutions" is over.

In terms of realistic military treats, persistence and coverage is more needed attributes in an aircraft than a few high cost FB-23 bombers with a high super-cruise speed envelope.

I think the US plans to fight every war from now in a broad coalition. Hence the F-35. An advanced weapon system they can trust to sell to their allies.

While the FB-23 is definitely a superb design, its cost is unfordable even to the US and especially at these economic times.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
622
Reaction score
5
lantinian said:
No, as that was part of the "We will not negotiate with the comunists and will keep them at bay with military force until their society changes" long term strategy. Whether that was the best strategy to whether down the USSR is another matter entirely. I do however think that forcible treats to the US require a different approach than the FB-23 bomber class aircraft.

The US relationship with with China now is very different to that with the USSR in the 50's. Planing to build such an advanced attack aircraft can only be interpreted as the US trying to keep the "bomb China with impunity" option open. In today economically interconnected world, that's the last thing you want to do to the country that houses your own manufacturing facilities for many goods.
I think US government sees that. I think that the time of the "purely bomber, regardless of cost solutions" is over.

In terms of realistic military treats, persistence and coverage is more needed attributes in an aircraft than a few high cost FB-23 bombers with a high super-cruise speed envelope.

I think the US plans to fight every war from now in a broad coalition. Hence the F-35. An advanced weapon system they can trust to sell to their allies.

While the FB-23 is definitely a superb design, its cost is unfordable even to the US and especially at these economic times.
In my opinion we must keep the possibility of a conflict of China in our minds when we examine our military capabilities, it may be unlikely but nothing happens as predicted.

The primary combat use of UCAVs in my opinion will be in designs like the X-45N and X-47B which will often function similar to the MQ-9 and older UAVs, but with full stealth and strike capabilities against defended targets. A subsonic "B-3" like the Next Generation Bomber was to be could also orbit a target zone and serve in a similar manner. These aircraft would be very useful in terms of persistence and coverage. Yet sometimes, even in current conflicts you need to be respond as fast as possible and something like the FB-22 or FB-23 would be ideal for those scenarios.

If anything our current experiences show us that we can't rely on our allies as part of our core military capabilities. We clearly wanted to export the JSF and the UK and other nations were going to be partners from an early stage. Lockheed clearly wants another "sale of the century" like with the F-104 and F-16. Yet the F-35 certainly wasn't designed around this political/military concept of relying on other nations more for our air-power needs. The F-35 shouldn't be shoehorned by politicians into any more roles than it was designed to fill, yet we see this happening now.

As a nation we could certainly afford the FB-23 and getting whatever else the USAF should have for the next two decades, but there is that lack of political will of course. There are much more effective ways to buy votes... :mad:
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
4
Website
www.hisutton.com
Crickey I thought that was your painting for a moment. Beautiful. Cgi with 3d models can be awesome but oldskool paintings like that blow me away.
 

aim9xray

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
484
Reaction score
25
The original was CGI by Aldo Spadoni.
 
Top