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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Really though, Mystik, How far off are we from this as a reality? I dont think its too distant in the future and we may be already damn close or at least testing
a reply to: MystikMushroom




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: kingofyo1

It wouldn't surprise me, and I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if they have a fully functioning BCI in a lab somewhere. What is shown publicly in the form of demo videos and press releases is almost always a several years after the technology has been thoroughly tested.

DARPA's been working on BCI's for at least a 6 years, quite possibly more than a decade. Heck, you can even buy your own headsets that'll translate your brainwaves into computer commands.

Now if they could only download me into the internet...



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

A lot longer than that. They had a BEM helmet that they were testing in the 1980s that used two three inch MFD type screens on the front of it. They could only wear it for about ten minutes at a time though because it was so heavy it caused severe migraines and neck problems.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I wonder how long it will be before we have experienced pilots sitting in a room, thousands of miles away piloting these aircraft with just BCI's (brain-computer interfaces)?


perhaps only to see that the mission goes according to schedule. I think due to the delay caused by the distance telecommunications chances are that this kind of aircraft are controlled by artificial intelligence.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: drwire

The LRS-B is manned. There are ways around the delay that will be coming into play in the near future. It won't totally eliminate it, but it will reduce it to levels that will allow for the first air to air UAVs.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain


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.


I fully agree with you and gave you a star!


Especially when the crappy old space shuttle went mach 30, was space capable with massive cargo bay and crew of up to 7 and could land on an airstrip whist only costing a mere $1.5 Billion per launch.


Roger A. Pielke, Jr. has estimated that the Space Shuttle program cost about US$170 billion (2008 dollars) through early 2008; the average cost per flight was about US$1.5 billion.


Space Shuttle Wiki

And before anyone screams about the shuttles obvious lack of stealth , moving at mach 3+ produces massive amounts of heat from both friction and extreme engine output and will be easily noticed by other nations.

The real reason for the LRB is because the major powers can't launch any ICBMS without extreme suspicion and alarm being generated and possibly starting all out nuclear war!

Which is why I though both White Houses had an emergency red telephone to communicate with each other directly so as to remove any shadow of any doubt?


Did they junk that red phone like they junked the space shuttle



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SmartsAreInfectious

What does the red phone have to do with anything? Bombers are capable of carrying conventional weapons. Yes, they make up one leg of the nuclear triad, but that doesn't mean they're only there for nuclear weapons launch.

The shuttle has crap to do with it too. Of course it's going to travel at high speed. But it wasn't powered except on launch. It's a totally different thing to produce an air breathing, sustained high speed platform.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There is no need for a manned air breathing, sustained high speed platform.

Manned hypersonic craft is almost lethal to eject from at mach 3 let alone at MACH 6 and the craft would be better off as an unmanned remote controlled UAV

ICBM's/Tommahawk cruise missile converted Boomer subs will do the 1hr anywhere in the world payload delivery job.

Satellites will do the intel.

The LRB is a "manned" Boondoggle to keep the MIC rolling in money with little if anything to show for it.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: SmartsAreInfectious

Yes there is a requirement for a manned air breathing platform. That's something they learned the hard way after getting rid of the SR-71. Satellites are predictable. Everyone that has something to hide, knows down to the second exactly when they're going to be overhead. It's easy to hide whatever you're trying to hide, and has been done since the first photo capable satellite was launched. Air breathing platforms are unpredictable. Something like the Global Hawk and U-2 are nice for taking pictures, and can get a lot of intel, but a high speed platform is even harder to hide against.

Subs and missiles have the really minor problem of not being able to be recalled. If you launch a missile, and realize that it was a mistake, it's going to the target, or you have to blow it up. That means debris and shrapnel, leading to damage to someone's territory, and a potential war anyway.

Unmanned aircraft have the problem that they can be spoofed/jammed, leading to potential losses. Just like the RQ-170 over Iran, that is now in several countries hands. Now you have high technology that you don't want getting out floating around getting loose, and just about everything is known about your platform. A manned aircraft can't be jammed or spoofed. Yes, ejecting is dangerous, but if you have a problem you're going to end up slowing down anyway, and slow to a safe ejection speed.
edit on 2/12/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Chip based micro-ring resonators would be a perfect answer to most of the valid problems you pose: www.photonics.com...
Real time, cost effective, perfectly secure, chip to chip based communications regardless of physical distance.

Always thought this type of stuff was 50 years away but based on the number of Universities spending vast amounts of money researching this type of tech- it seems they know something we (meaning I ) don't!



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

As long as you don't mind paying 10x as much for an unmanned platform.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm envisioning a stealth platform that is already based in the region of trouble that makes a short, quick subsonic or barely-sonic flight over to the hotspot while the fastmoving partner platform, carrying the weapons, is launched from a more secure location further (perhaps continents) away. Time the take off times of both to let the stealth platform move into position and assess things while the fastmover closes into range. Fastmover releases payload (missiles or such) from over the horizon, while the stealth platform circles far overhead and out of sight of the target, keeping it painted until ordinance arrival.

Wouldn't necessarily need a data link, just a signal on the spectrum that missile optics can read originating from the stealthy plane directed toward the target.

Am I completely off-base with this line of thought? I'm sure there has to be a more efficient logistical process for making craters.
edit on 13-2-2015 by Viking33 because: Clarification




top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join