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.

 

Long Range Strike Bomber News: Multiple Sources Reporting Northrop Grumman has won the Contract

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: FredT

When did they lie about the A-10 or spin the dogfight with the F-16?

I am genuinely not sure about the A-10, but those spinning the "dogfight" with the F-16 were mainly already anti-JSF and/or media-whores.

a reply to: Barnalby


The Actual Report F-16 vs the F-35

F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Wors

The F-35
will never dogfight hmmmmm


Everything wrong with the F-35

The USAF / Pentagon keeps acting like this plane is all it was billed to be and glossing over some serious flaws. All the while killing off effective combat aircraft

Save the A-10

Military Tells A-10 Pilots Not to Attend Pro-Warthog Confab—They Show Up

medium.com... ing/the-air-force-is-quietly-killing-off-the-a-10-over-congresss-protests-19171b6c863f

There is quite a few on both subjects. The bottom line in all of this is our procurement system is seriously flawed. We let the USMC basically hobble the Navy and AF jets, and we are allowing the USAF to kill off exactly the kind of airframes we need to fight an asymmetrical war. Do you really think they are going to risk an F-35 for CAS?
edit on 8/25/15 by FredT because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

No. The first was an LRS-B the second was unrelated.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

They're right on some aspects though. That dogfight was seriously weighted in favor of the Viper.

As for the CAS mission, yes the Hog is vital to that mission, but with the improvements in PGMs even a B-1 can provide CAS now.

Yes the procurement system is broken, and badly. That doesn't mean they're wrong on everything.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So it's more or less gospel at this point that the Texas bird was one of the LRS-B's? *cough* the Northrop bird *cough*

My random-ass guess is that Wichita was the P-AEA and that it borrows heavily from the A-12 (if the A-12 was meant to replace the A-6, then think of this craft as the replacement for the E-6).

The P-AEA mission (neutralizing enemy radar systems ahead of a first strike), which could well make this thing the successor to the F-117 companion, to me, seems like it could be a good reason why the Wichita bird will likely never see the white world, as I believe you've hinted at before.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What about this new jamming the Russians are playing with/
www.spacedaily.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Apparently spacedaily has a Russian propaganda desk.

First, all cruise missiles have an INS navigation system backup. INS can't be jammed, so they would still hit their targets.

Second, jamming/spoofing transponders is an old trick. There are procedures in place to identify who are your aircraft and who aren't. That jamming will only be in place as long as the platform is alive and in range.

Third, if there's even the possibility that a Russian strike package is inbound a carrier isn't launching and recovering aircraft.

Russian jamming has improved a great deal, and they do have good GPS jammers, but they're not about to render carriers obsolete with a single jamming trick.
edit on 8/25/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh cool.

Thanks for the clarification!




posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe they are comfortable enough with the system and off the shelf aspects that they moved on one way or another. Development is almost done win or lose.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

Could be. But it would be the first time I've seen it happen at this point in a competition.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Now for the questions that we're REALLY curious about.

Will we get to see the losing airframe? And if so, will it end up (alongside the winning prototype?) At Wright-Pat or Dulles?

Or will it end up getting buried in the desert alongside the XST, the AARS, the THAP, the ATB demonstrators, the YF-24, and all the other stealth prototypes/fastmovers/spaceplanes/black triangles that are now contaminating the groundwater under Groom Lake, and will we all just be salivating to see a grainy photo of the pole test model when they release it 25 years from now.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
To me it makes sense that LM/Boeing wins the contract for three reasons:

1. If the DoD is so interested in keeping costs down, LM/Boeing have deeper pockets to cover un-expected cost over runs than NG.

2. With Boeing involvement, they have the manufacturing capacity, experience at building large scale aircraft in a quick manner and production facility re-estate ready and waiting to facilitate production. This will also help to keep costs down over the long run and keep up with the AF's delivery demand.

3. NG had major technical issues with their entrant, on the same note, I don't think anyone has heard rumors of any issues plaguing LM's bird.

Now when dealing with Congress and Pentaweenies, all logic gets thrown out the door and the final decision is totally un-predictable.
edit on 25-8-2015 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Let me first state that I did not read the last link, because the link is broken. Of the remaining six links, all are provided by a single media source, and of those four are written by David Axe. While certainly these people might have best intentions everything you linked is through the lens of War is Boring and David Axe. In reality a large proportion of F-35 critics are very predictable - military reformers (who dislike basically any aircraft designed since 1980), or opportunists (such as those selling competing products or services).

The former would include the likes of Pierre Sprey (who also hates the F-15, Eurofighter, F-22, among others) and the latter would include the likes of Boeing and the media trying to spin a story. Then there are the fanboys or people who don't actually know anything, but think the F-35 should be more like 4th generation jets because that's the way things have been done for the last 3 decades (for the most part).


The USAF / Pentagon keeps acting like this plane is all it was billed to be and glossing over some serious flaws. All the while killing off effective combat aircraft

The JSF was built to meet Pentagon requirements. While indeed it has missed some of these which I am sure you are aware of, in general the aircraft is precisely what it was billed to be. Serious question, does the F-35 really have issues or is it the critics who make up the issues? Or is it a combination thereof. Why should the Pentagon listen to the likes of David Axe, over for example, actual professionals who have access to detailed information about future threats, F-35 performance, the capability and requirements of the military, and credible and detailed simulations? The answer of course is, it shouldn't, and doesn't.

A real problem is the Pentagon is hardly transparent, so it can become difficult to ascertain there reasoning. And they will not debate with those who critique them, instead they might put out a few press releases.

If you want me to critique a single article, just ask, but I'm not going to go through seven. I looked through the first one, I think the context of the report is missing. The 2nd article had many flaws in it almost immediately (starting with mention of that RAND report). I couldn't be bothered reading the rest but I'm probably already aware of all the arguments anyway.


Do you really think they are going to risk an F-35 for CAS?

Do you really think you know more than the Pentagon and all 9 other countries?

The answer to your question by the way is Yes. And why wouldn't they? Eurofighter, Rafale, Strike Eagle, even some variants of the F-16 are all more expensive than FRP F-35. Have these aircraft been risked in combat? The answer is yes. If you don't think the USAF will risk an F-35, do you really think they will risk a 550 million dollar LRS-B?

Now onto the topic of LRS-B - it won't be as big of a target, politically, as the F-35. But expect a huge amount of criticism to emerge from the same predictable sources with the same predictable arguments.
edit on 26/8/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/8/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/8/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/8/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/8/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/8/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/8/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/8/15 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I ask myself if the problem with the NG bird is more on the engine or airframe to stay 90 days on the ground surely something bad.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

I had speculated earlier that Northrop was going to be utilizing fluidic thrust vectoring and a boundary-layer disruption system to augment the more traditional flight controls, so as to minimize control-surface deflections and the RCS spikes that can come with them.

I believe I there was some confirmation here that the NG craft was, in fact using those technologies, and that the NG craft was the more ambitious of the two entries, at least when it came to RCS reduction, (though it's been hinted that the LM craft has a sportier flight envelope and some exotic visual stealth features) and that the issues were related to those systems or something similar.

If that's the case, then the answer would be "both"
edit on 26-8-2015 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
EDIT: Double post
edit on 26-8-2015 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

It was a software issue that nearly turned into an airframe issue...



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
The software of the new generation aircraft like the F-35 and futur LRS-B are realy more and more complicated may be soon we will be in limit of the technology .



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: darksidius
The software of the new generation aircraft like the F-35 and futur LRS-B are realy more and more complicated may be soon we will be in limit of the technology .


Thats pretty much always the case with these kinds of exotic technologies. Every time it is said that this is the limit of what we can do, but we always get past this and do even better the next time. Same story in computer hardware technology for example. Every new generation of chip it is said that we can't go smaller without some significant change in design and/or production and almost every time current design will be improved that little bit extra with some slight modifications to the process. Thats just the way tech developes I guess



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: spaceman42

Technology keeps on getting crazy.

IBM is working on low power cpu's.

Samsung recently announced a 16TB solid state drive.

With that sort of fast storage they can put some serious learning AI on a plane now.
Along with fairly large databases in the airframe.

www.theverge.com...



There's a thing called the Flash Memory Summit in California, because of course there is. And there, Golem.de reports, Samsung has introduced the PM1633a. It's a terrible name for a wonderful thing: the world's largest hard drive, packed into a 2.5-inch case. It's listed as 16TB (technically, it's 15.36TB), and the best part about it is that it's a solid state drive using Samsung's new 256GB NAND flash as the basis for the storage. As Ars Technica reports, that new flash memory is the key to stuffing more storage capacity into the same space, and it works by stacking the transistors vertically.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

so I'm confused are you saying Texas or Wichita is the first one?

and by lrs-b. you mean THE lrs-b or some thing within the new bomber family that plays well with the lrs-b?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join