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.

 

More LRS-B speculation

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Ran across an interesting Op-Ed piece today, that makes a lot of sense. Some semi-informed speculation on the new bomber specifications, and reasons behind them.



These would make it smaller than B-2, and allow it to fly under the radar of the New START treaty, even if it's nuclear capable. This could lead to it being the first true medium bomber in US inventory since the 1970s.


A meeting in Washington a few weeks ago, organized by the Center for a New American Security, brought together think-tankers, analysts and journalists to talk about the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), an $80-billion-plus project to be awarded soon to either a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team or Northrop Grumman.

The consensus was that there was no consensus, with a remarkable spread of opinions as to the most basic features of LRS-B—the requirements that will determine the project’s cost and schedule, largely irrespective of the targets set for public consumption.

But it’s possible to take an informed guess, starting with one fact: The LRS-B requirement emerged after its precursor, the Next Generation Bomber (NGB), had been canceled as too risky and expensive.

Bomber design starts with weapon load. It would be hard to justify a B-2-like 50,000-lb. payload today. Even in the 1980s, a mission that would involve 16 nuclear weapons was hard to imagine: the B-2’s weapon bays were designed around conventional missions. But at the time, guided bombs were expensive and required external designation; today, fire-and-forget guided weapons are commodities. There will be B-2s to deliver the 30,000-lb. Massive Ordnance Penetrator until nearly 2050, and work on lighter alternatives is already underway.

aviationweek.com...




posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If I may, Defense News has a big story on the the LRS-B.

Tl;dr:

smaller than the B-2, but bigger than the UCLASS

Both sides are supposed to have flying wings according to one source in the story, but another says the designs are rather different.

Cost plus incentive for the EMD contract with an LRIP of 21 aircraft. A second contract for the remaining aircraft.

Initially all manned, but planned for optional.

Aggressive electronic attack in both.

Won't be certified for nukes immediately.

While both designs are very mature, neither has flown according to the sources: just wind tunnel and signature model work.

Make what you will, but I suspect the individual ranting about Boeing and Northrop not having a hypersonic bomber is going to be really disappointed. Also doesn't realize how hard hypersonic is and that in the 1950s, they were doing the easy stuff.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
While both designs are very mature, neither has flown according to the sources: just wind tunnel and signature model work.




Although technically they are telling the truth in that the final design hasn't flown yet. Heh.

(To be clear, that was directed at the Air Force, not you)
edit on 9/2/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

haha. Ah, the Princess Bride. What ISN'T it quotable for?

I figured you weren't calling me a liar. I can't say whether its flown or not: wrong part of the country to see, alas.

I wonder if we're seeing a difference of a supersized LM/B Polecat vs an NG cranked Kite like the X-47B.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Multiple people have independently confirmed that the aircraft were in Scotland early this year, and that they've been flying for quite awhile now, testing technologies.

Everyone that has seen it has had the same thing to say about both of them. They're incredible designs, and both are absolutely gorgeous.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Are we sure they were LRS-B prototypes?

Reason I ask is because we know there are multiple tech dev prototypes running around. They might be vaguely related, but not the actual prototype of the plane itself. Hence, the guy could be telling the truth and still be less than totally truthful. You might say making the truth dance a mighty fine gig.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Yes, they were certain that they were LRS-B prototypes. There may be some changes between these and the final design, but these weren't technology demonstrators. Two of the sources would have known if they were, and certainly would have told me.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That would fit with what Sweetman (*bites tongue*) stated about the budget profile of the LRS-B.

I wonder how much the Air Force will acknowledge when they do their unveiling and if the loser's design will be shown as well.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Yeah, I don't blame you for biting your tongue when that name was mentioned. They are doing a surprisingly good job of managing the budget on this one.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Just not presenting it to Congress.

I can only imagine..."You gave Congress WHAT?!"



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Zaphod58

Just not presenting it to Congress.

I can only imagine..."You gave Congress WHAT?!"


Bribes?*runs away*



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

That's probably why the RCO got involved. They're good at keeping things quiet, and getting things done on time.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

"If you don't bribe Congressmen, they starve!"



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: yuppa

"If you don't bribe Congressmen, they starve!"


well at least the new ones. the old ones just get free steak dinners from lobbyist.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I always thought Lossiemouth was a good place to hide something. Relatively secluded, active Tornado/Typhoon base, lots of hangar space, who's going to think twice about another nighttime takeoff?



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Unfortunately, its behind a paywall, so I can't get to it. The article about the LRSB did appear on AvWeek's RSS feed. You just might have access, Zaphod.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Pretty much more of the same, although with some speculation that they're years ahead of where the Air Force says they are. Other than that, it's the same information, written somewhat differently. Both teams received risk reduction funding of an undisclosed amount for propulsion and antenna integration, etc.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Northernhollow

There's a big green hangar at the North side of Lossiemouth, that if the walls could talk...



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Interesting looking at the PW F135,s with variable vectoring..



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Interesting to see an F135 ADVENT. Good engine for it though.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join