USAF to spend $2bn on unmanned bomber

[YYZPICS]

"The US Air Force has set aside $2 billion over the next several years to launch the accelerated development of a next-generation bom­ber that is almost certain to be unmanned and unlike anything on the ramp today. At the same time, the air force continues to evaluate manned vehicle technologies, such as a hypersonic spaceplane, that could be technologically feasible about a decade after the unmanned bomber is due to enter service in 2018."

Full Story (http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/02/07/Navigation/177/204539/USAF+to+spend+$2bn+on+next+unmanned+bomber.html)

All these unmanned a/c look like s*it i think...

[DAL767-400ER]

As long as it's effective (and not too costly), I couldn't be bothered about the looks. If I want looks, I look at the SR-71 Blackbird ;) .

[Chris@YYZ]

All these unmanned a/c look like s*it i think...

I have to agree, I hate unmanned aircraft anyway, but yeah, they do look like sh!t

[seventwo]

We could pobably get 100+ brand new fully modernized B-52's for far less. USAF has been a complete idiot of late...

[FlyingPhotog]

mmm kay, changed what I was going to say

[Cam]

mmmm, military spending. You guys know how to spend the cash man...let's make some more stealth bombers at 1B a piece...

[screaming_emu]

boo for unmanned flight

[scramjet]

Whoopdeedoo, more military waste! Will this one be able to fly in the rain? :roll:

[seventwo]

Whoopdeedoo, more military waste! Will this one be able to fly in the rain? :roll:
ouch....:lol:

mmmm, military spending. You guys know how to spend the cash man...let's make some more stealth bombers at 1B a piece...
The B-2 costs 1B a piece? damn!

[Simpleboy]

Yeah, the B-2 stealth bomber costs 1.2bil (approx) a frame. Consequently due to the Soviet collapse only 21 were made when the programe wasnt finished. Had they not already been building them at the collapse, they probably would never have started to.

[avro_arrow_25206]

boo for unmanned flight
UAV developments keep us engineers employed :p

[Top_Gun]

unmanned flight is to keep the pilots safe and alive. What since does it make to invest all the resources into training this bomber pilot and having them die in a crash or something else.

These pilots still can fly the aircraft, now just from the comfort of a building back at Nellis ;)

These aren't too ugly either.
http://topgunphotography.milavia.net/photos/albums/Upload/Nellis/Static_34_X-45.jpg

http://topgunphotography.milavia.net/photos/albums/Upload/Nellis/Static_07_Drone.jpg

[seventwo]

unmanned flight is to keep the pilots safe and alive. What since does it make to invest all the resources into training this bomber pilot and having them die in a crash or something else.
I'd still rather be up front than let a computer have the fun.

[Chris@YYZ]

I'd still rather be up front than let a computer have the fun.

yeah, its a lot more fun to be in the plane, then being 100+ miles away, it takes the pilot and turns him into a desk worker

[Top_Gun]

yeah, its a lot more fun to be in the plane, then being 100+ miles away, it takes the pilot and turns him into a desk worker

tell that to the spouses and kids who lost "Daddy" in that cockpit.....

I can understand the "fun" factor, but loosing a life when technology can avoid that is the best way to go.(IMHO)

[seventwo]

tell that to the spouses and kids who lost "Daddy" in that cockpit.....

I can understand the "fun" factor, but loosing a life when technology can avoid that is the best way to go.(IMHO)
You do have a good point but a manned aircraft are still more flexible than a UAV. AI just cannot match a human mind, and maybe it never will. Daddy could get killed crossing the street at Edwards going into the control room to "fly" a mission. Some risks are involved in everything, the crews and thier familys know that. If I had the chance to fly an A-10/F-22/B-52, I'd take it over a UAV in a secound. If aircrew were dieing every day, UAVs would make more sense, but it only takes one aircraft with smart bombs do destroy a target that took hundreds of B-17s/24 in WWII which put thousands of crew at risk. Less aircaft will be needed in a modern war and loss of life would not be bad at all...and I think if you assked most any pilot if they thought the risk was worth it theyd say yes.
Just my opinion anyway...

[kukkudrill]

Daddy could get killed crossing the street at Edwards going into the control room to "fly" a mission. Some risks are involved in everything, the crews and thier familys know that. If I had the chance to fly an A-10/F-22/B-52, I'd take it over a UAV in a secound.
Ever flown in combat? If yes you might be worth taking seriously.

[seventwo]

Ok, I take back what I said. Read the thread over and I guess I just said that without thinking much. From what I have heard combat flying is scary sh*t. My mistake...

[scramjet]

As far as the unmanned revolution, I don't see why pilots see it competing with them. As a future professional pilot, I don't. Someone will need to manage them from the ground even if that means only checking up on it occasionally. Also, the FAA and other government agencies would never let an aircraft with passengers, no matter how fancy shmancy it's programming is, fly without a pilot onboard. Furthermore, there has to be someone to program the plane to do the stuff it does, a plane is not going to be able to figure out that it needs to fly from KPIT-KLAX at a certain time let alone know how to fly period until someone inputs the code that it follows. Case in point is modern launch technology, it's highly automated yet someone (mission control) monitors and occasionally controls it from the ground or in the case of manned space flight, has a pilot onboard to assist. In fact, I predict that within the next fifty years, pilots will become know as pilot/flight programmers. Besides, there will always be jobs for us on the final frontier;) which it is (my very far fetched) dream to go after test pilot school.