Message posted by Peter Merlin on April 28, 2012 at 7:44:07 PST:
It would make no sense to modify the wingtips while keeping the rest of the airframe intact. The B-2 configuration was carefully designed to maximize controllability while minimizing radar cross-section. Any changes would significantly alter the aircraft's performance characteristics and RCS. Also, the B-2 represents older technology. It would be far simpler and more logical to build a new airplane. There are other issues to consider, as well. The B-2 was the most expensive bomber ever produced. Only 21 flightworthy examples were built (now reduced to 20 dues to the crash in Guam). Congress and others probably keep a close eye on the program. I don't think it would be that easy - or even desirable - to just "borrow" one for modification to a drone. The current philosophy for building a new bomber (the proposed B-3) is centered around a less expensive airframe with newer technology. With advances in materials, manufacturing techniques, avionics, and stealth, this is an achievable goal. I would sooner believe the new hangar would be used for a new bomber prototype or possibly a new large UAV. I don't like to speculate since we have no real data. It's all just guesswork. The size of the hangar itself provides little information. Since it was built, people have floated numerous theories: Modern trends in overhead reconnaissance involve satellites, stealthy drones, and long-endurance UAVs. Trends in hypersonics involve weaponizing the technology for prompt global strike (X-51A and AHW). Likely despite political and budgetary battles that have repeatedly killed and resurrected the project. In January 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced plans to fund development of an optionally piloted, long-range, nuclear-capable penetrating bomber for FY 2012. He also said the aircraft "will be designed and developed using proven technologies, an approach that should make it possible to deliver this capability on schedule and in quantity." Although Lockheed Martin has been developing lighter-than-air craft (HALE-D, P-791,etc.), they seem to be content to do so in places like Palmdale, California, and Akron, Ohio. At any rate, the new hangar at Groom doesn't look like it was built to accommodate an airship. In recent years there have been several attempts to develop high-altitude, long-endurance UAVs. AeroVironment proposed a craft based on its solar-powered Helios, and tested the hydrogen-fueled Global Observer. Boeing tested the piston-powered Condor, and is preparing to fly the hydrogen-fueled Phantom Eye. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that a classified HALE craft would be tested at Groom Lake, and such a craft fits within the prevailing trends in tactical and strategic missions. If such a program were underway, it would make more sense to launch a vehicle from beneath a mothership rather than from on top. Historically, we have seen that underwing or belly launch techniques are mush less risky to the launch crew and mothership. But, what would be the purpose of such a vehicle? Another high-speed recon drone like the D-21? A new weapon of some kind? Who knows?
Manned hypersonic spy plane to replace the SR-71
Next-Generation Bomber prototype or technology demonstrator
"Stealth blimp"
Large UAV
Manned or unmanned vehicle and mothership
At least, I think we can all agree on one thing. A hangar is a place to park aircraft. A hanger is a device for storing your clothes.
In Reply to: Re: Theories on Large Hanger posted by NoOne on April 27, 2012 at 19:55:01 PST:
Replies: