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.

 

Bomber decision expected in August

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Fair enough, a few crumbs to keep them happy.

Just hope the 6th gen isn't pushed back another decade...




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Borys

What will be the main differences between 5th Gen and 6th.

P



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

RAM skins, avionics, power plant efficiency/thrust ratings.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Am I wrong for reading "power plant efficiency/thrust ratings" as "Obscene thrust/weight ratios and the return of sustained Mach 2.5+ flight"?

What I've gathered is that they're going for the electronic complexity of the F-35, the stealth of the LRS-B, the maneuverability of the F-22, and the performance envelope of a 1960's interceptor (think the EE Lightning, the Mig-25, the F-108, the Avro Arrow, the TSR-2, etc).



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

You probably wouldn't be too wrong. With the advancements in jet engine tech recently and the very real possibility that the jets won't have a pilot inside, it would be a safe guess.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: Sammamishman

Am I wrong for reading "power plant efficiency/thrust ratings" as "Obscene thrust/weight ratios and the return of sustained Mach 2.5+ flight"?


At mach 2.5, you're glowing really hot in the infrared, and in the sensitive region of AA missile seekers.

You might be able to outrun from the rear, but missiles can be launched from the forward direction.

My guess is that a significant goal for new engines is to get commercial-like subsonic cruising efficiency over international waters without tanking, and then military performance while over target.


edit on 18-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
ok all kidding aside. what would China need a stealth bomber for?


Japan, Taiwan and US Carrier groups

Stealth Backfire----get in to moderate range just beyond the F-35C radius, dump anti-ship missiles, turn around.



other than keeping up with the Jones I don't see why they would need a strategic bomber unless they are hoping to bomb their neighbors.


clever girl

Eventual goal is for China to "Finlandize" Japan, Korea & Taiwan and break their alliances with USA. A stiff threat helps.


edit on 18-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Infrared bandwidths attenuate relatively quickly through the atmosphere compared to radio waves. IR search and track has a very narrow field of view comparatively. Ground based IRST is still sort of in infancy. The window for IR detection, tracking, and release is rather small for an object travelling at high altitude at Mach 2.5+. From another aircraft, the odds of detection would go up (less atmosphere/moisture between the sensor and the target), but you're still dealing with finding it, getting yourself into position to do something about it, and actually doing it when you're talking about airborne interception. And at Mach 2.5+, those decisions have to come together quickly or you miss your window completely. Odds are you're going to need a radar solution (and not just an eyeball on the IR) to make those decisions correctly. Knowing which small corner of the sky to send all your AESA output would be helpful though.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Borys

Northrop just received a $4B 5 year contract for Global Hawk upkeep and modernization, as well as $5.9B in total sales in the 2nd Quarter of this year. They don't have any huge contracts, on the order of the bomber, but they have a lot of smaller contracts that will keep them viable until the 6th Gen fighter competition.

2015 Press Releases


Now, I wonder if that's any indication that NG's the loser of the LRS-B contract?



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: weavty1

No, them shifting all but a handful of engineers and $6B to the 6th Gen fighter program is.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
NG give internaly $6b for the 6th gen fighter program ? If so yes it's not a good sign for the LRS-B contract.



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

I really do not know, but as I do advisory work in product development, I will take a stab at what they may be after in general terms.

First, we all want things like faster, quicker, stealthier etc etc. Am sure 6th gen will have that. But what I would like to see them try for is solving inherent contradictions. In product design, we have to make compromises. Say with a cellphone, you want it to be light - but too light and it will break easily. Make it too strong, and it will cost more to make and be heavy, also larger perhaps.

But what if we could have it all? I can imagine 6th gen tech going for that: an airframe that is light, strong, easy to repair/maintain and very stealthy. Engines that are very effective at low level as well as high. It can generate massive thrust yet have a minimal IR signature.

That's my general thought: they are going to try and do many amazing things at the same time which previously would have involved compromises.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
prg.potomacresearch.com... content=20214484&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Soon .....May be september 18 th.

edit on 21-8-2015 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Makes sense.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Certainly there are difficulties, but sensors & signal processing are just the sort of thing that get much better over 30 years, and physics of the consequences of fundamental airframe design doesn't.

And so why not high altitude drones, possibly airships, with 360 degree IR telescopes? Same thing as what you want for missile launches detection anyway.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Cant wait to see her sitting on the tarmac, it reminds me of that feeling I got as a kid before Christmas. I hope when the day comes its some actual images or maybe even a video of the hangar doors opening up to the public for the first time.
Cue Top Gun intro....

To any of the aviation forum members and lurkers: I know some of you here have signed NDAs and I wouldn't ever want you to break them or get too close for comfort, but when the aircraft is rolled out to us general public, would you all be allowed to post any images you may or may not have or tell us a bit more about it or the other competitor aircraft? Maybe even some prototypes and demonstrators exist related to the program or even a good ole fashion story from the developing years, I love it when you guys post first hand accounts of some of the stuff you have done or are still doing.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join