It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

West Texas Spanloader

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Any ideas as to when the announcement will be made. And will the roll out be near Los Angeles? Finally is there enough room in the back of that cab for one extra passenger when you do go to see it get rolled out? I promise to be good and I don't need a lot of leg room since I'm short.




posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It's supposed to be announced in the spring.

Yes it will be, sort of.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Somewhere near Lancaster? And do you think the public will be allowed to go or only those with press credentials or special invite? Cause that might be worth taking the day off to go see.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I'm wondering if this will be only known about and reported within aviation circles until it goes into a hot zone...



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Followup to my previous post:

Conceptual LRS-B Demonstrator Planforms
edit on 3-2-2015 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD
In the Northrop video for me it look like the wings has a junction like a swept wing system, and the round hangar is different of other , why ?? a circular hangar?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

I'm not sure the hanger is that important. I believe the hangers (as well as every other element, including the planes but minus the pilot) were digital created anyway.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
First time posting after lurking for a few months. Thanks everyone for all the insights. It's been fun trying to put the puzzle pieces together.

The LRS-B has been discussed recently in this thread, but I don't think that is what was seen over Amarillo. There were 3 jets flying in formation that day, and I doubt they would do that with the LRS-B demonstrators. I doubt each company even built 3 demonstrators (could be wrong), much less flew them all at once in formation. To me, that points more to a tactical platform that's further along in development than the LRS-B. If not operational, then approaching IOC. The planform also doesn't look like either the NG design or the LM design, assuming the final product looks similar to those.

Zaph's hinted that there will be more coming to light this year than just the LRS-B, and that it could be due to training constraints of the other platform(s). I think what was spotted over Amarillo is the F-117 tactical attack replacement, and it is being brought out of the black due to daytime training constraints, just like what happened with the F-117. It might even be following the same Groom -> Tonopah -> Holloman path that the Nighthawk followed. I could be way off, but that makes a lot more sense to me than it being 3 LRS-B demonstrators.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: jimbo85

I've always wondered about that specific LM LRS-B Bomber depiction, not other ones where it's less extreme looking of a design. In that specific picture linked. The engines on top look massive. Way too massive for a bomber going low mach. The whole design looks like it's meant to go much faster. Although I also think it's interesting that there are similar LM LRS depictions that aren't as extreme in the narrowness of the chime or front half of the fuselage, and the engines look stealthier and slightly more buried in the frame. Sometimes I wonder if that above posted LM LRS depiction image depicted is not the bomber but is related to the LM bomber in some way.

I dunno any thoughts ATS community. And what about that member who posted his sighting of something similar in broad daylight over central California I think about a month or two ago? Drawing he made looked similar.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

The intake on the NG rendering is large, but the exhaust isn't. It could just be a variable high-bypass turbofan (fuel efficiency is very important on global strike like commercial!).

The LM rendering? It looks like 4 engines and huge, much more like SR-72, right? And no pilot. And notice the holes in two arcs around the engines. What's up with that? What does that remind you of?

en.wikipedia.org.../File:SR71_J58_Engine_Airflow_Patterns.svg


These can't be for the same program.

edit on 4-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Personaly I think this 2 rendering Lockheed and Northrop had nothing to see with the futur LRS-B demonstrator, its just pictures for the web. Lrs-b is all classified so I realy doubt they put pictures on the web years ago. For the performance we know nothing , why low supersonic ? may be it will supercruise like a F-22, surely new advance in engine will be on the futur LRS-B , not hypersonic for sure it mus t be too difficult and too expensive for that but surely with new capacity better than a B-2, instead a reborn of the B-2 will be enough if you want the same capacity.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Okay, so maybe the LRS-B drawings don't accurately reflect what the final product looks like, but I still don't think that's what was over Amarillo. Don't you think the fact that there were 3 of them in formation points to a program that's further along in development than the LRS-B?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: jimbo85

Not at all. Two of the three were B-2s.

Plausible deniability.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well that changes all my assertions. I guess it was the LRS-B. Maybe I was biased because I'm more excited to see the F-117 replacement than the LRS-B.

You referenced the LM design I linked in regards to the more recent Weird California Sighting by punkinworks10, who felt it was about identical in shape to what he witnessed. So I guess that design is flying around, but it's not their LRS-B?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: jimbo85

We'll find out in a few months.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Any rough ideas as to when the unveiling of the Wichita bird happens if ever? That would be cool. Fun to see what people think it could be.

But enough about that. Zaph what do you think of what MBKennel wrote in regards to the linked LM depiction? Those do look like really big engines to me. Like real big. And the shaping of the wings is interesting too. Wicked looking those are. Do things I suspect.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'd heard rumblings that the Northrop submission ran into teething problems and the pendulum is swinging back to Boeing/Lockheed, is that what you mean...



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

NG damn near lost their bird.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Never. I'll be shocked if that one ever goes grey.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Is the Boeing/Lockheed design the same one with all of the AARS/Polecat DNA in it that they were teasing for the NGB? It'll at least be nice to see a distant descendant of AARS/Quartz see the light of day if that's the case...

Shame about Northrop though, I like them and want them to succeed. Could the Superbowl ad essentially outing the LRS-B for the Dayton and DC markets be a corporate hail-mary to keep their hopes afloat?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join