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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigTrain

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.


wow your really showing your ignorance here if thats what you think happened with the 117...I suggest you go back and research the main reason it got shot down. May surprise you.




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

That "1960s era" Mig is going to be shot down way before it has any chance at all to sniff out a stealth bomber.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

You said that already.

See you need to be more creative with your responses. I recommend the last pages of the AESA thread in the aviation forum if you want to see how it's really done.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Did you guys try to get my attention.....i just got home and ive got heavy mil activity over the house....ospreys, 18s and maybe a few 35s all of a sudden...

My point is.....the DOD is asking for another trillion or so for a new bomber....and it just seems pointless to have what appears to be the same ole...sorry if thats ruffling some feathers.....going to be a hard sell in my opinion especially after the F35 has garnered so much hate.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

So it's not ok to ask for that money for up to 100 copies of something that we know works, and works well, but it's ok to spend 10-20 times that amount to develop a few copies of something that can't do the mission as well, but gets there faster.

Yeah, that's logical.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

A trillion dollars?

I suggest you take a break from chasing your tail to read up on things like basic modern bombing tactics, fixed price contracts, and the financial dichotomy between procuring and maintaining a subsonic bomber vs a hypersonic speed machine. You also might want to analyze when and where this new bomber would be used(i.e. potential conflicts) and the consequential threat environments that it would face in those scenarios, then perform an analysis of why this new bomber would be so grossly insufficient to get the job done as opposed to the hypersonic bomber that you so badly want. I'll give you a hint: the new bomber will be more than sufficient.

You still haven't answered my question on why this new bomber absolutely has to be hypersonic.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: BigTrain

A trillion dollars?

I suggest you take a break from chasing your tail to read up on things like basic modern bombing tactics, fixed price contracts, and the financial dichotomy between procuring and maintaining a subsonic bomber vs a hypersonic speed machine. You also might want to analyze when and where this new bomber would be used(i.e. potential conflicts) and the consequential threat environments that it would face in those scenarios, then perform an analysis of why this new bomber would be so grossly insufficient to get the job done as opposed to the hypersonic bomber that you so badly want. I'll give you a hint: the new bomber will be more than sufficient.

You still haven't answered my question on why this new bomber absolutely has to be hypersonic.

the lrsb is 550M minimum and up to 800M+ a copy. Thats 80B for 100 bombers and we all know its gonna hit 1T eventually...ok 100B at least. So zaphod is claiming 20 units will be 10x if we went hypersonic. ....so then green flame was 5Billion to develop zaph? Holy cow thats quite a theft of taxpayer cash!!!!

Green flame or whatever was a couple billion at most so lets reduce that by a factor of say 40% and still be 2x better than B2 revision 2015.....right?

As far as why does it have to be hypersonic. ...becuz its infinitely more difficult to track lock and shoot that speed than it is 600 mph. Even if youre pouring heat out the back....good luck catching it.




edit on 5-2-2015 by BigTrain because: fixed math

edit on 5-2-2015 by BigTrain because: more fixing



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BigTrain

So it's not ok to ask for that money for up to 100 copies of something that we know works, and works well, but it's ok to spend 10-20 times that amount to develop a few copies of something that can't do the mission as well, but gets there faster.

Yeah, that's logical.


Zaphod what are we developing? Youve been all over this board claiming MIB like flying tech is out there. ...green flames yellow streaks moving at light speed....so whats to develop? Cant we just build more if all the research and dev money has already been spent?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

An SR-72 platform won't cost near what you're proposing. It's a recon platform without a strike capability. Even if they added that later, it would be extremely limited. So the cost is nowhere near as high as you tried to twist it.

It's hard to track? Tell that to SR-71 pilots that were tracked every step of their flight. When the MiG-31 came in to being the possibility of intercept went way up. Add in new missiles, and the Foxhound radar upgrades and it gets better.

You can't truly stealth a hypersonic platform. You can reduce its signature, but you can't stealth it the way you can a subsonic bomber. The new bomber has an RCS that's microscopic compared to previous stealth aircraft.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

No. Because, as I said, one isn't an aircraft so does you no good for developing an aircraft. You can't just take information for an SR-71 and apply it to anything you want. It's shape and mission specific.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

I don't think you're understanding the concept of a fixed price contract. The USAF will not pay one cent more than $550m. Any cost more than that is paid by the contractor themselves. $55b is a vastly smaller number than $1t.

You don't need to catch a high speed platform if you perform a head on intercept of it and get a shot off. In addition to the MiG-31 upgrades Zaph mentioned, ask the Swedish Viggen pilots who were able to perform intercepts and get radar locks on SR-71s while they were performing their missions around the Baltic Sea on multiple occasions.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   


the lrsb is 550M minimum and up to 800M+ a copy. Thats 80B for 100 bombers and we all know its gonna hit 1T eventually...ok 100B at least. So zaphod is claiming 20 units will be 10x if we went hypersonic. ....so then green flame was 5Billion to develop zaph? Holy cow thats quite a theft of taxpayer cash!!!!

Green flame or whatever was a couple billion at most so lets reduce that by a factor of say 40% and still be 2x better than B2 revision 2015.....right?

As far as why does it have to be hypersonic. ...becuz its infinitely more difficult to track lock and shoot that speed than it is 600 mph. Even if youre pouring heat out the back....good luck catching it.





Where are you getting these insanely low numbers from? So your claiming that the green flame type aircraft only cost a couple billion at most to develop? Well lets take a look at something here. The brand new, KC-46 tanker from Boeing, which is a derivitive of a commercially available Boeing 767 is projected to cost $5.85 Billion dollars to develop and test, including the cost of the four test aircraft. And this is an aircraft that is basically a commercial 767 with military avionics and refueling equipment tacked on. So the cost of development and procurement of a hypersonic aircraft in your opinion is less than half the cost to develop and procure four KC-46 aircraft?

Lets be real. Its probably going to cost Lockheed at least 6-10 billion dollars to develop and produce just one SR-72 aircraft...



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Big Train,, we can't forget that the futur LRS-B is called a family of system so may be there will be more of a subsonic bomber in the futur inventory . If Zaph say its an amazing aircraft we surely can trust him, but the law of physic are the law something flying at mach 6 in the atmosphere must be surely very hard to build and having a very high cost and a speck of sands in the flight will finish in a ball of fire , not realy possible for a bomber with a crew and nuclear weapon in it. The very good news of the past week is the start of a 6th gen fighter program in finaly in the same time of the LRS-B 2025 for the bomber , 2030 for the fighter, a new X-plane with new propulsion technology is enough to make me happy. Me too I will enjoy to see a mach 6 bomber flying before I die but its more a dream that a real operational possibility

edit on 7-2-2015 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

how old are you? a strategic mach 6 bombers are probably far off. but i bet as we speak there's something with a high mach number able to do a quick strike and i bet its manned.

seems like if it can carry surveillance stuff you could swap it out for a bomb or two.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
In the forty range sadly, so hurry up guys
I would be happy to see a roll out of something in the hyper



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

ahhh i just turned 30 in august. seeing something streak across the sky is awesome but could you imagine getting a ride in one of those bad AS* platforms(LRS-B,yellow or the green lady) i would give my left nut just to touch one of them on the ground.

Keep your eyes up and listen to the scuttle butt around here and you might see something if your lucky. Iv only seen a yellow bluish something cover the horizon VERY quickly. I made a report on it when it happened, its on this site. and it was amazing.

people love to bash America and say were dumb and cant do anything. but i know other wise. people who try to hurt America are going to be in for a big surprise.

i say let the dogs of war off the chain for a demo and i think that will clear up terrorism from nation states very quickly or at the very least shut north Korea up.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3
People who bash USA are jerk people with no interest , I live in Europe and I promise ,trust me the best place to be in a real big problem is surely USA in 1 ( and UK in 2) , the military technology of the USA is, with a big certainty the number one on earth. USA build good car too


edit on 9-2-2015 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: darksidius
Big Train,, we can't forget that the futur LRS-B is called a family of system so may be there will be more of a subsonic bomber in the futur inventory . If Zaph say its an amazing aircraft we surely can trust him, but the law of physic are the law something flying at mach 6 in the atmosphere must be surely very hard to build and having a very high cost and a speck of sands in the flight will finish in a ball of fire (


You don't need a hypersonic bomber if you have a regular bomber with a hypersonic missile. It sure saves lots of mass & fuel if you get 90% of the way there on the ECO fuel economy setting.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The Brits had it right with the V-bombers, just as the Soviets/Russians did with with the TU-22 twins and the 160. Build the most survivable bomber platform that the technology of your era will allow for, and arm it with the fastest, deadliest missile load that you can.

In the 50's through the 70's, the best tech available to help your bomber strike its targets was pure, raw speed, which is why all of those standoff missile carriers I mentioned ended up as the fastest big birds this side of the Concorde or the XB-70.

Since the 80's though, stealth tech has changed the game, and the the best shot at surviving to unleash your payload now lies in building a high-subsonic airframe with a flight profile not unlike that of the Handley-Page Victor, then making it as close to invisible as you can. Hence the B-2, and now, the LRS-B.

The only people trying to make fast bombers today are the Russians with the PAK-DA, and even then they're only doing it because their low observable tech is so far behind ours.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join