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.

 

2015 ACC Strategic Plan

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

When reading the article it mentioned the lrs-b will replace the b52 and b1 rolls. Then later it says the b2 will also be included under this new reorganization.

Sounds to me like the lrs-b is to replace the b1 and b52, but not necessarily the b2.

Maybe they are looking at something else in small production numbers to replace the b2.

Maybe the Northrop contestant showed enough innovation and promise that they secretly want, as soon as Northrop can work the bugs out, a next gen bomber to replace the b2. That they think the Northrop entry has what it takes to be the next gen or fill its roll to some degree for at least now.

Maybe by modifying other classified vvlo aircraft already in production. I would not be surprised if the next gen bomber is much farther along than we'll ever know.

I know there are other assets out there they are claiming wont be on line for more than a decade but secretly already have been for at least several years. So who knows what's going on with our bomber family. I suspect the portfolio is now so robust and capable that it needs its own seperate command to manage it all.




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: WeOwnTheNight

Northrop has just as much going on in Palmdale. In fact they were testing something in their hangar the night we were there watching. They had too many problems with their bomber, and their fixes probably came too late in the game, although the Air Force is evaluating it to be sure.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The entire bay where B-2 was built is empty, ready and waiting!!! Hahah



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
May be we can have a surprise if the problem is fixed and the choice by the USAF not made and if the Northrop technology is promising, the winner can be Northrop don't forget the problem of Lockheed with the F-35 it can re-shuffle the cards, and for the group of engineer of Northrop working on the 6th gen it can say the Bomber technology so promising it can be use on futur 6th gen fighter no ?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: WeOwnTheNight

They'll have their own work going on there.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Even if the AF wanted some of NG's LRSb entries, I don't think it is capable of replacing the B-2 outright. It is in a different weight class than the B-2, smaller platform, smaller payload as far as I know.
Also they won't start phasing out nuke capable bombers (B-52's, B-1's) till the new bomber is fully certified to carry nukes, which it initially won't be for some time.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

no I'm wondering if there's a f22/f23 thing going on with the Lockheed boeing and Northrop entries. like the two may be weren't meant to compete.

doesn't the b1 have a heavier payload than both the b52 and b2?


wouldn't the Lrs b. be comparable payload wise.
edit on 14-8-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

The new bomber has a light payload compared to the other three.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

well that sucks



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It doesn't NEED a 60,000 pound plus payload anymore. They needed those payloads because they had to drop so many to ensure the target was hit. Now they can carry 15 bombs, and hit 15 targets.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

yeah but it would be cooler if it could hold 60 bombs and hit 60 targets. either way I guess I shouldn't complain, the brown skivies factor for the enemy will be high with the lrs b no matter what. but damn would be cool if they added a little diesel into the equation. don't let me down lockheed.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

And adding the extra capacity adds cost.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I get over excited about this subject sometimes, I know the LRS-B will be subsonic B2 replacement.

Now would the tankers fall under this structure to support the bombers as well?


originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

well that sucks


Its what you drop, not how much. We will still have the BUFF around for years to lay down an iron carpet.


edit on 15-8-2015 by StratosFear because: multi-quote



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

The tankers will still fall under AMC, ACC, and AETC.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   
In your opinion Zaph what plane will be the more awesome the Lockheed/Boeing , or Northrop product ?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   
i always thought the B-52 had a much larger payload than the B-1. Regarding the smaller loads, I suppose you don't just have to carry the bombs anymore, you have to aim them too.
edit on 15-8-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

B-1b payload = 75k lbs
B-52 payload = 70k lbs
B-2 payload = 40k lbs

I think the LRS-B might be in the 20k - 30k lbs range. The F15E by comparison has a payload of 23k lbs.


www.af.mil...



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

They're aiming for 30-33K on the new bomber.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman
More in the F-111 range of payload.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: waynos

B-1b payload = 75k lbs
B-52 payload = 70k lbs
B-2 payload = 40k lbs

I think the LRS-B might be in the 20k - 30k lbs range. The F15E by comparison has a payload of 23k lbs.


www.af.mil...


Thanks for that. Could I have been thinking of the B-1A payload? Was that less?



new topics




 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join