LRS-B (new stealth bomber) speculation

a reply to: lowchi
You'll find all of that same information in these three (3) documents, which I've kindly uploaded to dropbox for you all:

www.dropbox.com...

www.dropbox.com...

www.dropbox.com...



Additionally, I have submitted some FOIA requests for a couple items that I think will relate to what we saw in Amarillo and Wichita.

originally posted by: boomer135
Yeah but it lost the competition. So maybe it wasn't as stealthy? It would be certainly more manuerable than the other ones in the comp. Only thing I can gather is less stealthy.

Well, retracting the canards into the strake might help minimize the signature problems in most flight regimes. You could potentially make them out of a composite material with good properties to also minimize the effect on the signature -- as sketched, however, they introduce several new lobes, which would certainly be less than ideal.

The F-14's glove vanes were to move the CL in supersonic flight and avoid nose pitchup. If these were to increase maneuverability as you've stated, then deploying them in a knife-fight might make sense when your signature isn't really a dominant factor in the engagement. All-moving, - or canards with flight surfaces would be ideal from a aerodynamic standpoint, but either of those solutions would further complicate the issue with the lobes -- and it's not in a very good spot. If you think of the aircraft as a lever with the CG/CL as the fulcrum, the closer to the nose we put the canards, the better the input will be. One would think thrust-vectoring would have provided sufficient pitch control to eliminate them completely.



Other possible reasons for losing a competition might be the very low internal fuel capacity and weapons load out... The F-35 has an impressive fuel capacity, and with it's big, thirsty F135 it is still going to be considered relatively short-legged. This aircraft would be in a much lower weight class for sure. Could probably use a less thirsty engine, but has substantially less internal fuel volume.

Or it wasn't a competition, but something else, and got killed by bureaucrats.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm pretty sure it lost a competition.

a reply to: boomer135

It may have, but I heard an interesting story about it today that if true, kinda pisses me off.

a reply to: _Del_

If they're thirsty birds, it makes sense they'd want to base them on the West Coast. Something tells me that the Pacific theatre in the next 50 years is where we should be looking.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

There's an interesting engine improvement that gives quite a bit of speed, for not a lot of extra fuel burn.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Variable cycle engines?

a reply to: weavty1

That first link has a graph on page 20. Within that graph it says, "Inventory does not include LRS-B to keep report unclassified."

I thought that was kind of interesting. Almost implies that there is a current inventory.

It also states, "The Air Force continues funding the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), a key component to the LRS Family of Systems." What other aircraft are part of the LRS Family of Systems?

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

The current bomber fleet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Significantly less exciting of an answer than I was hoping for, but thanks for the explanation.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: darksidius

Now if you take the scalpel approach instead, and have been probing (RC-135 before things heat up), and know the radars and specifics about it, you can take a really good EW system and finesse the returns. Suddenly you have returns all over the place,

Given where they were over a decade ago, I would imagine the ability to have a "system on a chip" is well in hand so that any platform, no matter how small, could carry the capability. Rather than jam a detection system, why not overwhelm it? Or if you don't want to give it all away by said overwhelming, which is really just the opposite of blunt-force jamming, fake it so that incoming looks like it's coming from a different direction. The concept is easy, just like a boxer's feint at a left hook when the damage is coming from the right. If you can get the enemy to launch at the shadows, you gain advantage.

It kind of reminds me of the first police radar systems that were housed in large trucks hidden in the wood. Each PD only had one or two of them so the local radio stations would simply broadcast where they were that day. being bright orange and such, every time they moved one it was obvious. Then a few years later every motorcycle patrolman had a handheld device.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Yeah, it's one of those "oh my god this sounds so cool" things that in reality is "oh, hey, I didn't think of that".

There is no new cool UAV in the futur of the LRS family? I hope the bomber itself will be a new cool beast , to reward our waiting .

a reply to: darksidius

I have a hunch it will be.

Its the more passionate program of the decade to come, the birth of a bomber is realy an event in the Aerospace world. I remember the first time I see the B2 on the TV , it was great and look realy like a UFO at this time.

a reply to: Sammamishman

It's the stuff you don't hear about that's even more fun.

a reply to: darksidius

Let's hope the new bomber has the same effect

a reply to: BlackDog10

It will and probably more lol

I hope so, since the time it's classified it will be surely something pretty new and inovative