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.

 

LRS-B (Time to Vent)

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Im sorry fellas but I have to chime in here. Ive been lurking around here for over 10 years and I cant even remember the last time I posted but I cant keep quiet anymore.

Ive read the recent "green lady" and yellow flame and whatever threads and I got to say, if this 'new' LRS-B is going to be a subsonic flying wing then we havent made 1 single advancement in 40 years.

I dont really care about the excitement some of you have over ECM and other radiowave toys....if our new bomber isnt mach 3 plus it will be a total waste. We had XB 70 what 50 years ago? And here we are getting excited about a subsonic batwing?

Come on fellas....hypersonic is the true advancement....and really anything else is just...well....garbage....sorry. especially with some people on here claiming some CRAZY things. ...so green lady and yellow flame is out there and we get flying batwing at 600 mph????

You think the defense critics are mad now with the f35, wait til you try to tell them were gonna spend 550 to 800M per plane on a B2 look a like....youre gonna see a firestorm of rage from them. On the other hand...u propose a kick butt mach 5 + beast mode screamer SR 72....THEN youll get your plane.




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
If the hypersonic requirement was added it would cause the cost to skyrocket. Hypersonic flight is both very difficult, and very expensive.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

$550m is the price that the Air Force has set. They are moving to fixed price contracts and any cost more than that is paid by the contractors themselves.

Adding extra requirements such as hypersonic capabilities would cause the price to increase almost exponentially, leading to a smaller amount of aircraft purchased and unhappiness all around. That doesn't even account for the increased costs of maintaining and operating the hypersonic aircraft vs the subsonic one.

Would you race a NASCAR stock car down to the grocery store everyday or drive your F-150 if there was no difference in mission requirements and completion?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
The object wasnt to get an all new advanced hypersonic bomber. It was to help replace the aging bomber fleet with something that is here, now. Not a technology that is still maturing. There would have been no way in hell that they would approve the building of 80-100 hypersonic bombers at a cost that would rival the entire F-35 program. The SR-72 like aircraft is being built, but it wont necessairly have a bomber role. More like an ISR, limited prompt global strike role. The type of aircraft that we dont need but a few of. The real, no #, hypersonic, extremely advanced bomber is supposed to be the 2037 bomber thats on the radar. That one would be the answer to your questions. But for now we just need something that can get past near peer and peer state air defenses, and that can deliver 30000 pounds of bombs on a target, and survive.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

They already do have a kick ass sr72..

This bomber has a different requirement.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: BigTrain

$550m is the price that the Air Force has set. They are moving to fixed price contracts and any cost more than that is paid by the contractors themselves.

Adding extra requirements such as hypersonic capabilities would cause the price to increase almost exponentially, leading to a smaller amount of aircraft purchased and unhappiness all around. That doesn't even account for the increased costs of maintaining and operating the hypersonic aircraft vs the subsonic one.

Would you race a NASCAR stock car down to the grocery store everyday or drive your F-150 if there was no difference in mission requirements and completion?



Not to mention that if we kept the 550 million price tag and still wanted a hypersonic bomber, there isnt a company in the united states that would accept the deal, not on a fixed price contract.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

They would have to be insane to. The cost overruns would be more than the total program cost.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Would you see an aerospace capable system as a viable weapon?



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

I get that a lot of fanboys want a super-cool, hyper-sonic, $billion plane worthy of featuring in a hollywood blockbuster. However, it won't surprise many people, that the air force have different concerns. 1) something that works, consistently, and proven (advanced) technology is a good way of achieving that and 2) cost, as others have pointed out here. I'm sure the research is being done into hyper-sonic aircraft etc. but for day-to-day operation, and for asking for tens of billions of dollars in funding from the government, the air force have to balance these things out. And to put it bluntly, they don't care if you "can't keep quiet anymore", they care about doing their job.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Did you see the Super Bowl commercial for the plane...the one we are not allowed to see? Too funny!

www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Firstly let's have a look at the mission parameters. Let's start by saying"get off your high horse the Commies DO NOT want to invade USA".
So who are you going to fight with the multi billion dollar planes? Let me think, er, er, oh yes enemies that are still living in the middle ages. A b45 could do just as good a job.
Just who the hell do you think you gonna fight?
What a complete waste of money just so you can brag about having the biggest dick on the block.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

So if the US stops developing weapons, everyone else will stop and the entire world will sit around singing Khumbaya suddenly. Right?



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
Just who the hell do you think you gonna fight?
What a complete waste of money just so you can brag about having the biggest dick on the block.

Having a strike capability in contested airspace is an incredibly important aspect of the US military. Planes that can fly into heavily defended places and drop bombs is actually much like a nuclear deterrent now...it is that important.

Hopefully the US never has to use them.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Granted we've been fighting a lot of asymmetrical/guerrilla-style wars as of late, but China and Russia are not resting on their laurels.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: BigTrain

They already do have a kick ass sr72..

This bomber has a different requirement.


Ok this is perfect. ...if a SR-72 type bird is ALREADY flying....then whats the roadblock to building 20 or 50 or 100 of them and calling it a bomber....if a mach 6 bird is cruising the skies then the tech hurdles Zaphod mentions are not a concern as its cruising now....so again....according to some on here we have birds in the sky but we get a 2008 f150 instead of a 1995 f150????



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: BigTrain

They already do have a kick ass sr72..

This bomber has a different requirement.


Ok this is perfect. ...if a SR-72 type bird is ALREADY flying....then whats the roadblock to building 20 or 50 or 100 of them and calling it a bomber....if a mach 6 bird is cruising the skies then the tech hurdles Zaphod mentions are not a concern as its cruising now....so again....according to some on here we have birds in the sky but we get a 2008 f150 instead of a 1995 f150????



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

Because the Air Force has a price requirement. That price does not include speed.

It's not simply a matter of making a fast platform and adding bombs. The more weight, the more power required, and the more fuel used, and the less range. A 30,000 lb bomb payload would drastically cut speed and range on a high speed platform.



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol people think oh hey we've got a hypersonic plane, let's strap some bombs underneath it, it's really easy.. Lol



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigTrain

originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: BigTrain

They already do have a kick ass sr72..

This bomber has a different requirement.


Ok this is perfect. ...if a SR-72 type bird is ALREADY flying....then whats the roadblock to building 20 or 50 or 100 of them and calling it a bomber....if a mach 6 bird is cruising the skies then the tech hurdles Zaphod mentions are not a concern as its cruising now....so again....according to some on here we have birds in the sky but we get a 2008 f150 instead of a 1995 f150????
Who needs a plane when you can have hypersonic cruise missiles?



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
You could probably find room for a special weapon or two if you stripped out some of the goodies, but it'd be near-useless for carrying around most conventional weapons. Certainly wouldn't be worth the cost of a fleet the size of the intended LRS-B buy. But you might keep one or two in your back pocket in the even that something becomes one of those occasions you care enough to send the very best.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join