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: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: buckwhizzle
I'm hoping it's a S.H.I.E.L.D Heli-Carrier


In the meantime, you can build a LEGO one...






posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: weavty1
If you don't put something like Advent on a new bomber realy wich aircraft can get it ?? They don't wait another century to use it for my opinion.




posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: weavty1

Want to bet?



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well if they use the ADVENT engines, that's great news . But its hardly going to melt the internet with that news, especially if LRS-B comes out looking like a souped up B-2 on a lesser scale. So, what have they got up their sleeve , and will we ever get to see it soon ? I doubt it.
edit on 15-6-2015 by nelloh62 because: wrong info

edit on 15-6-2015 by nelloh62 because: omg i really do need to learn how to type

edit on 15-6-2015 by nelloh62 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: nelloh62
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well if they use the ADVENT engines, that's great news . But its hardly going to melt the internet with that news, especially if LRS-B comes out looking like a souped up B-2 on a lesser scale. So, what have they got up their sleeve , and will we ever get to see it soon ? I doubt it.


Haha, I see what you did there, you wont bait Zaphod into revealing secrets by playing that card..



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

They aren't out to "melt the Internet", they're out to develop the best aircraft that the AF money can buy.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

Nope, not baiting him, he's too smart for that. Just stating that if it rolls out looking something like Senior peg with ADVENT engines, I, for one will be disappointed. I wanna see the real sexy stuff, I wanna see something sharp, pointy and super fast, and I wanna see it now !!!!!



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

haha, at least the USAF can afford one. Here in the UK we still depend on Vulcans !!
Oh, wait one. I see we have just increased our air power tenfold !!
www.dailymail.co.uk... -12-years-ago-tribute-heroes-Bomber-Command.html





edit on 15-6-2015 by nelloh62 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Given that LM and Boeing are allegedly the winners, I'm hoping for an up-scaled cross of the original Hopeless Diamond design and the Bird of Prey. The radar signature of the former with the (allegedly tested) active camouflage and flight stability of the latter would be pretty dandy. It would probably look pretty awesome too.

LM does have a history of building demonstrators from currently existing parts, such as what they did with Have Blue. And Boeing did similar with their Bird of Prey, developing it from off the shelf parts. Boeing also spent somewhere around US$70M of its own funds for developing the Bird of Prey. I don't think a company would use its own funds, especially such a large amount, to develop something that has essentially stalled in the X-45 (shelved by USAF) and Phantom Ray (also being developed internally by Boeing, but has been very quiet since it's first flight in 2011) programs.

So when it comes to keeping cost down, both companies do have some positive history.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Nope! I actually got my birds confused... Smh, lol.
That's why I shouldn't post after 11pm, anymore 😂

Drowsiness and lack of my own fact-checking, got the best of me.. 😅


Cheerio, Zaph 😙



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Yep, I see where you are going with that. A hybrid of those two would seem the most sensible, especially when trying to keep the budget on target. I read somewhere that someone thought that if they had gone with the LM bird instead of the B-2, they wouldn't be in this position now



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Good write up on that over on Foxtrot Alpha.


Perhaps because it was built in secret and designed to be invisible, the stealth bomber is unforgettable the moment you see it. What few remember, though, is that the iconic silhouette almost looked like this. Here's the story of how Senior Peg came to be, why we didn't get it, and why we might want it back...

The unique and downright breathtaking shape of B-2 is such a common fixture on the walls of grade school boys across the country that it is hard to imagine that America's beloved "stealth bomber" could have been any different than the one we have come to respect and our enemies have come to fear. Yet the truth is that the USAF's bat winged masterpiece could have had a stubby tail, a faceted windscreen and a Lockheed Skunk Works logo on the control yoke.







posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Yeah, i'm pretty sure that I have read that one, it is a good read, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, it also has some good links in



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

It would be funny if Senior Peg rolled out the hanger though. A bit of a " told you so, you just would't listen would you " moment



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: nelloh62

Good write up on that over on Foxtrot Alpha.


Perhaps because it was built in secret and designed to be invisible, the stealth bomber is unforgettable the moment you see it. What few remember, though, is that the iconic silhouette almost looked like this. Here's the story of how Senior Peg came to be, why we didn't get it, and why we might want it back...

The unique and downright breathtaking shape of B-2 is such a common fixture on the walls of grade school boys across the country that it is hard to imagine that America's beloved "stealth bomber" could have been any different than the one we have come to respect and our enemies have come to fear. Yet the truth is that the USAF's bat winged masterpiece could have had a stubby tail, a faceted windscreen and a Lockheed Skunk Works logo on the control yoke.






You should read the book 'Skunk Works' written by Ben Rich and Leo Janos. It contains a whole chapter on the stealth bomber competition from Lockheed's perspective. There were a few pieces of info in there I did not know yet. Very interesting book in all. I can highly recommend it



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I'd rather have this one.





posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
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.


Which is why you might not end up seeing the "losing" team's aircraft



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
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.


Well, I did that, and China have developed a very impressive...erm..."projectile", which demonstrates that they are getting as good as the US at throwing stuff and Russian tactics seem to be clearly focused on protecting their interests in the Ukraine and the Black Sea. I'm not seeing any imminent threat that requires a $600 million a pop solution, other than the threat posed to the contractor's profit margin if the projects are both binned.


originally posted by: BASSPLYR
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.


Sounds more like it's a pissing contest to me.


Though some form of hyper-sonic weapons has existed for decades, the new missiles being developed by the US, China and others belong to a class of their own because of the “boost-glide” technology which enables them to travel very quickly and at a flat angle. Boost-glide weapons follow a hard-to-trace trajectory which makes them difficult to target using current missile-defense systems.

The weapons "are launched by big rockets just like a ballistic missile is," explained Carnegie nuclear expert James Acton. "But then rather than arcing higher than the atmosphere, they are put on a trajectory to re-enter the atmosphere as quickly as possible. Then they just glide to the target," he was featured as saying in Business Insider this fall.

Experts say hypersonic capabilities are indicative of a large scale military build-up. Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon strategic forces specialist, was quoted as saying in the Washington Free Beacon that China’s latest hypersonic vehicle test poses “a serious threat.”

The US and China have been engaged in what some have dubbed a hypersonic arms race. This summer, the US tested its own hypersonic missile after China ran its second test of the Wu-14. Though both countries had successfully tested hypersonic weapons in the past, both August tests failed.


rt.com...

It is all really just a very expensive show of posturing isn't it? It'd be sufficient to simply make one, flash it around a bit, then shove it under a dust cover on the off-chance that war breaks out, whereby it can be trundled out and copied...and the world will be saved again (until next time). Or just do what Churchill did, and have cardboard cut outs built, with liberal amounts of double-sided sticky tape obviously. Not quite as shiny and sexy but much cheaper, and biodegradable.




posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: nelloh62
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well if they use the ADVENT engines, that's great news . But its hardly going to melt the internet with that news, especially if LRS-B comes out looking like a souped up B-2 on a lesser scale. So, what have they got up their sleeve , and will we ever get to see it soon ? I doubt it.


Yep. What ive been saying for a long time. You unveil a B-2 alpha subsonic with "upgraded" electronics you will see a backlash from congress the likes of which youve never seen. 100Billion for a newer F150....ya right. You want 100 Billion you bring it boy....big time. Heck i could take an XB70 and make it stealthier than a B2 if you gave me 20Billion. Get outta here with this flying wing 3.0 stuff



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

Yes, because an F-18 is just an upgraded F-15 with minor changes. They both have two engines, two tails, etc. That's exactly what calling this an upgraded B-2 is like.

But then you'd rather spend a billion dollars an airframe to get a hypersonic platform, so you can have three bombers in the inventory.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join