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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

No, it was in the Mach 6 range or so. All the flights ended at eight minutes.




posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It's not that we can't or don't want to go hunting for those gains, it's just that it's expensive to do so, and the gains you do get become ever more incremental the further you push things.

Look at the use of carbon-fiber or titanium compared to aluminum. The gains in weight versus strength for titanium or exotic composites compared to aluminum aren't nearly as big as the gains you got when you jumped from steel or wood to aluminum. At the same time, titanium and CF to this day cost an order of magnitude or so more to procure and fabricate than aluminum does.

That cost/benefit breakdown extends to all cutting-edge technologies, whether in aerospace, medicine, computing, etc. It's why while you may find ways to mitigate drag or friction, or find new materials and engine technologies, they will generally increase the cost of your vehicle to the point that it's only cost-effective in very specific situations.

It's why there's all sorts of evidence of exotic fast-movers existing in very small numbers for highly specialized, mission-critical roles like ISR, anti-satellite warfare, global strikes, etc, while the bread-and-butter bomber is to the B-2 of 25 years ago what the 2015 Accord V6 is to the 1989 BMW M5 of 25 years ago. There's something to be said for getting the same capabilities in a much cheaper, much more reliable package.
edit on 4-2-2015 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If thats the official line then yes sir. And thats what I'll stick to. Damn you laws of physics we have been defeated again. We try but we just keep getting pawned.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
uote]originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

If thats the official line then yes sir. And thats what I'll stick to. Damn you laws of physics we have been defeated again. We try but we just keep getting pawned.



So why cant we have a mach 4 B1 then? Youve already got the engines....and youve got the materialS and youve got the shape....and zaphod says we got horizon to horizon craft doing speeds that would make you wet yourself. ....yet again i go back to our subsonic bomber.....so we supposedly can do hypersonic at the very least.....bit we cant go mach 4 to 6 for a reasonable discount?? So Zaphod....how many billions and bilLions and billions did the DOD spend for the green lady but this LRS is going to be expensive for subsonic wing?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

The horizon to horizon craft is not an aircraft.

You have no understanding of the challenges involved. To get the B-1 supersonic at all, they had to remove as much weight as possible. This included an electrical generator, leaving it horribly short on electrical power. They have to choose between deicing the aircraft, or navigating at times.

An SR-72 type platform is light. The SR-71 had a loaded weight of under 200,000 pounds IIRC. A bomber carries that much weight in fuel. Add in the basic aircraft weight, plus payload, and you're talking over 6-700,000 pounds. The XB-70 had a max takeoff weight over 500,000 lbs, and required six engines to get up to speed.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

It's seems like it would be allot easier to make a smaller faster ship then a large fast bomber.

And I bet the LRS-B doesn't need to go that fast so why pour all you money for the bomber to make it super fast when there's no need?

I don't remember if the green lady is rumored to be in the atmosphere all the time but if it's not that would solve the heat/speed issue.

And if you want to get wild maybe it's true, the rumors of certain ships being able to create a corridor in front of them to reduce drag. And it seems if the yellow and green signatures of these things are so bright that maybe some sort of electrical drag reduction is being used. The green might help with NV but there might be more to it.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

Let me ask, why do you think that the new bomber absolutely has to be high speed in the first place?

For defense? Speed is a great defense mechanism, but the vast majority of the time a sweet EW/ECM array will do the job exceptionally well.

For offense? The only reason that you'd need to put warheads on foreheads within a few hours would be to counter a nuclear strike. That's where ICBMs come in and the bombers are launched to bat cleanup.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
The one thing that needs to be said here is that we are looking for a work horse bomber. Not a specialized Mach 6 bomber. I mean what's more likely? Bombing China or bombing some country like Syria? We don't need a Mach 6 bomber for 90 percent of the bombing missions of the future in my opinion.

Also, you ask why all the excitement for the release of a sub sonic bomber? Prob the simple fact that it's one of only a handful of aircraft that is known to have flown out of area 51. Lol. I mean if you really think about it at the speed in which the government is declassifying crap alot of us are excited just to see an aircraft come out of the black. I know I was excited when the bird of prey came out, yet what really did that jet do? I know to a certain extent of why they built it but alot of people only care about the fact that a top secret aircraft flown out of groom Lake was public.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Hi Guys first post here after ghosting a number of forums for a while.

It quite a breathtaking discussion around what's coming at us .And what we will also never get to see. You guys clearly have the inside track and have kept me hooked for a while now.

Zaph,you state that the horizon to horizon item isn't an aircraft. I may have missed it in this thread or another so can you shed some light on what it actually is. Understand if you cannot, but the comment really spiked my curiosity

Thanks

A reply to: Zaphod58


edit on 5-2-2015 by Whaddaukno because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Whaddaukno

If you have a craft that doesnt breathe air the entire time, and is out of the atmosphere skipping around part of the time one could reasonably assume it may be classified as a "spacecraft"



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135



a reply to: [post=18965563]

That's like saying 'ohhh I like Chevys because there made in detroit' there new car will be aweeeesome.

I get what your saying but there's alott of other neat places things can fly out of.

As long as I get good pics it could have flown at my local airport for all I care.





Kingofyo1:

Sneaky designations throwing people off.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135
The one thing that needs to be said here is that we are looking for a work horse bomber. Not a specialized Mach 6 bomber. I mean what's more likely? Bombing China or bombing some country like Syria? We don't need a Mach 6 bomber for 90 percent of the bombing missions of the future in my opinion.

Also, you ask why all the excitement for the release of a sub sonic bomber? Prob the simple fact that it's one of only a handful of aircraft that is known to have flown out of area 51. Lol. I mean if you really think about it at the speed in which the government is declassifying crap alot of us are excited just to see an aircraft come out of the black. I know I was excited when the bird of prey came out, yet what really did that jet do? I know to a certain extent of why they built it but alot of people only care about the fact that a top secret aircraft flown out of groom Lake was public.


Because subsonic flying wing was made in nazi germany 80 years ago. Give us sonething ADVANCED for our 550M to 800M price tag. Zaphod just proved my point.....we had XB 70....50 years ago....with inferior materials and we still had mach 3+. Now imagine today you put 6 F22 engines in an airframe....or imagine if you re engineered the ramjet from the 71 and used today's knowledge of fluid dynamics and materiald emgineering....then use 4 of those engines....but we cant do it? I refuse to accept that. Mach 4 is doable today right now by 10am. Without spending half of the LRS budget....just another DOD and contractor wet dream with no advances in tech....people are going to be very upset to see B2 revision A under the tarp in Palmdale.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Personaly I think a low supersonic bomber with a speed cruising range like the B1-B , very high altitude and a futur High power laser may be unstoppable.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain


I don't think any one disagrees that it's possible, but the feasibility and need really isn't there.

With the prompt global strike program and the obvious unnamed hypersonic projects going on I don't think that we need a hyper sonics large platform bomber the XB-70 was a nuclear strike bomber.

And with missile technology where it is if we ever have to fight a peer level advisory I doubt we'll be sending in bombers first when you can send hypersonic missiles for way cheaper



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain


Because subsonic flying wing was made in nazi germany 80 years ago. Give us sonething ADVANCED for our 550M to 800M price tag.....we had XB 70....50 years ago....with inferior materials and we still had mach 3+.


So...

Since a 1964 GT40 race car was able to achieve 220 mph, today we should drive to the mall in an Indycar right?

It's a matter of what is needed.

A large fleet of hypersonic bombers is not needed. A flying wing instead is a suitable design to maximize payload, fuel efficency and other aspects required by most conflicts.

Pretty much just in the same way you drive your everyday car and not an Indycar.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigTrain

originally posted by: boomer135
The one thing that needs to be said here is that we are looking for a work horse bomber. Not a specialized Mach 6 bomber. I mean what's more likely? Bombing China or bombing some country like Syria? We don't need a Mach 6 bomber for 90 percent of the bombing missions of the future in my opinion.

Also, you ask why all the excitement for the release of a sub sonic bomber? Prob the simple fact that it's one of only a handful of aircraft that is known to have flown out of area 51. Lol. I mean if you really think about it at the speed in which the government is declassifying crap alot of us are excited just to see an aircraft come out of the black. I know I was excited when the bird of prey came out, yet what really did that jet do? I know to a certain extent of why they built it but alot of people only care about the fact that a top secret aircraft flown out of groom Lake was public.


Because subsonic flying wing was made in nazi germany 80 years ago. Give us sonething ADVANCED for our 550M to 800M price tag. Zaphod just proved my point.....we had XB 70....50 years ago....with inferior materials and we still had mach 3+. Now imagine today you put 6 F22 engines in an airframe....or imagine if you re engineered the ramjet from the 71 and used today's knowledge of fluid dynamics and materiald emgineering....then use 4 of those engines....but we cant do it? I refuse to accept that. Mach 4 is doable today right now by 10am. Without spending half of the LRS budget....just another DOD and contractor wet dream with no advances in tech....people are going to be very upset to see B2 revision A under the tarp in Palmdale.


yeah like the others have stated. I think we can do it. we just dont NEED to do it. Take afghanistan or iraq for example. Would we need to employ Mach 6 bombers to bomb those countries? absolutely not. Its a waste of gas, resources, etc. Hypersonic flight isnt cheap by any means. You put six f22 engines on an airframe and your RCS will be as big as a barn door. And if they do happen to make it stealthy, the heat generated alone from hypersonic flight is enough to make you a target.

I would say your in the minority of people who are going to be upset to see it.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

Way to ignore everything but what you want to see.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BigTrain

Way to ignore everything but what you want to see.


Russia will gun down your "super stealthy slow mover" with a 1960s era cannon from a mig. Im not ignoring anything. People on this board still makes excuses for how a bunch of low knowledge old skool radar guys took out a f117....our slow moving stealth is glamorous money wasting at best....youre just giving the ICBM amd satellite guys more ammo if you poop out a B2A....same ole same ole fellas.....boring and not advanced since 1970....excellent spending choice.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

So stealth is obsolete because ONE plane got shot down, out of THOUSANDS of combat missions. You can't hit what you can't see.

I'd rather have a fleet of a hundred stealthy bombers caryying 30,000 lbs, than five that can carry two or three bombs, but can get there in an hour.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

The f117 got shot down because they were flying pretty much the same flight path EVERY night. So the commander got inventive with his radar and pointed his SAMs in the general direction he knew they would be flying and got lucky.

The planners are the one who essentially shot down that nighthawk.

And there are obviously more platforms in use then bombers. But I have to agree with Zaphod a wing of Slow bombers is better then a flight of just a few fast moving bombers


edit on 5-2-2015 by penroc3 because: Grammer




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join