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.

 

Lockheed Martin Mystery.....

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Honestly... im not so airtech savvy so wats supposed to be so special about an LRSB anyways?

Am i wrong in assuming that anything less than a gravity-defying (black triangle type) tech aircraft is not really gonna be that 'revolutionary'?

What is gonna be so special about lockheed's new surprise then?




posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: combatmaster

An rcs the size of a gnat for less than $2 billion a pop and some nice gas mileage seems spiffy enough for something not so revolutionary.

It could have some cool stuff we'll never hear about under the hood that might be more what you're looking for.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

It's US only.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: combatmaster

Unprecedented stealth, range beyond what current aircraft can do, and a lot of classified equipment.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Stealthy in many ways.

Plus it looks pretty sweet. That's important too.

Plus it's range sorta throws a wrench in a lot of tactics/warplans enemy nations would like to utilize. Strongly reduces their options in wartime counterstrikes and gives us lots of advantages.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, it's about what I'm expecting!



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
This is interesting...


The Pentagon’s decision could also have major repercussions for the defense contracting sector. With close to $100 billion at stake, the losing bidder could suffer heavy losses. Kendall has assured the public that the Pentagon’s decision will not take the broader contracting impact into consideration, but will choose whichever company proves better for the project.


Read more: sputniknews.com...

Wouldn't it be wiser to take the "broader contracting impact into consideration" rather than pretend it doesn't exist? Particularly since the DoD has a directive interest in both the contenders for the contract, just to follow through with the pretense? Is the "public" so easily fooled? Surely, given the shortage of big money military contracts to go around, wouldn't the sensible thing be for the two "bidders" to form a third company, with a DoD chairman of the board obviously, and that way the booty is evenly distributed and everyone's happy? Isn't that what they usually do?



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

From what I understand northrups design and lockheed design are too different from each other. Merging both companies different approaches would be cool but I imagine its harder than it looks. It would be like Ford with their front mounted engine designs being blended with Lamborghinis mid engine designs and cab forward leanings. Sorta mutually exclusive. The engineers would probably argue back n forth ubtil nothing gets done going. My ways better! No, my ways better!

I say make a bunch of the Lockheed bombers for a robust and very dynamic bomber force and contract northrup once they get their ambitious design to work for a small limited production in case there is a target that not even the Lockheed bird can get to. Maybe contract northrup to make a bunch of complimentary drones if the Usaf don't want to pay for a second manned strategic bomber.
edit on 14-6-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
looking cool is half the battle you know. lets hope there are some sweet stickers on it. you know to make it go faster, if i were flying one i would put the ubiquitous NOS sticker on the window



originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

Stealthy in many ways.

Plus it looks pretty sweet. That's important too.

Plus it's range sorta throws a wrench in a lot of tactics/warplans enemy nations would like to utilize. Strongly reduces their options in wartime counterstrikes and gives us lots of advantages.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19450519]Zaphod58
More Range than a B-2 with a smaller size ?? It need realy something new in term of propulsion.


edit on 14-6-2015 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bigburgh

There should be an announcement coming early in August. A rather important one we've been waiting for.


edited out my ignorance
edit on 14-6-2015 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Yeah i heard they are going to put red white and blue racing stripes just off center down the middle of it. Plus the landing gear is all chromed out.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I say make a bunch of the Lockheed bombers for a robust and very dynamic bomber force and contract northrup once they get their ambitious design to work for a small limited production in case there is a target that not even the Lockheed bird can get to. Maybe contract northrup to make a bunch of complimentary drones if the Usaf don't want to pay for a second manned strategic bomber.


Given that the last two major projects have gone vastly over budget, and in terms of the running costs alone the B-2 has proven itself to be unsustainable even in the short term, I wonder what kind of long term planning is going through the Pentagon's head. I'm sure it would be far cheaper to just flush the money straight down the toilet. I mean, realistically, would this craft actually fill a tactical gap that is worth that much to fill? I know that if all goes to plan that it is going to be a # hot piece of kit, and all shiny and sexy and all, but, strategically, what's the point, in the field of play? Other than, they have funnelled billions into developing this technology and will keep funnelling money into it in order to prove that it is worth funnelling all the money into it. I mean, $135,000 an hour to run the B-2 was it? That's an hilarious amount of money.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

Fixed price contract for the purchase. The B-2 is highly maintenance intensive, mostly because of the RAM. There have been huge advances in stealth coatings since.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

Is the tactical gap this bomber will be filling worth the money?

If you study the weaknesses of the US current air force and compare that to the tactics of current potential enemies such as Russia or China, then yes this bomber is sorely needed in my opinion.

Remember the old cartoons where a tall guy was holding a little guy out if reach while the little guy swung away futily not connecting. The new bombers sorta gunna allow us to do that.

But its also very versitile from what I hear. Capable of doing that and a whole lot more.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

ADVENT.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: darksidius

ADVENT.
you forgot to add CHILDREN behind advent.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: penroc3

Yeah i heard they are going to put red white and blue racing stripes just off center down the middle of it. Plus the landing gear is all chromed out.


only landing gears?.


I want the whole aircraft is chromed.
edit on 14-6-2015 by drwire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman
Not on the LRS-B



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I'm hoping it's a S.H.I.E.L.D Heli-Carrier

edit on 14-6-2015 by buckwhizzle because: Damn auto-correct




top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join