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: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Medium bomber? I'd name it Hustler. Second choice would be Mitchell.




posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you have any idea why Scotland? There's certainly some very empty spaces up there, but surely for OpSec nothing can rival somewhere on Nevada. And also, we know at least one of the teams has been having some issues, and somewhere in continental US would make it much easier to get maintainance etc. out to them?

Or is that the point? They're modelling some forward deployment?

Cant believe I missed a good chance to spot a black bird on home turf!



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Stngray

Aardvark.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: gfad

They were testing against a few things and modeling some scenarios.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: gfad

Someone on secretprojects reckons they saw a "Manned Phantom Ray shaped craft" at 60* mag heading North with F15 escorts over the Moray Firth (how they could tell it was manned is anyone's guess).

The Douglass pics seem to depict a Phantom Ray type shape so maybe this is the reason for the advanced state of things (whilst acknowledging the quotes stating finalised aircraft hadn't actually flow yet).

The 2 offerings (Texas and Kansas) are basically just resized, optionally manned, Phantom Ray and X47 derivatives??


edit on 3-9-2015 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Great they were in Scotland, but a nicer test would have been Sevastopol, 9th of May 2014...could have solved a lot of problems that day...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

Could you point me to the post, I'm not having much luck finding it?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Northernhollow

Hi there, long time lurker here.

All this talk of things happening in my neck of the woods has piqued my interest - even though it's all been very interesting!

I'm not sure about Lossiemouth, just because it is right in the middle of, well, Lossiemouth and has a golf course at the bottom of the runway - so too many unauthorised eyes to look in. But it does, as you say, have active fast jets and many hangers, so could be a possibility.

My thoughts would be Kinloss or Leuchars. Both are now run by the Army but still have aircraft presence and all housing nearby is military owned. Kinloss has very few spots to look at the the runway and empty hangers (no Nimrod now
) and has aircraft bays in the forest. Leuchars, although opposite St Andrews, much of it is obscured by trees and large hangers etc. Also, B2s have refueled there before without anyone's knowledge, until one took off at lunchtime and appeared over the berm between the runway and the road - there was much tea sprayed from the mouths of the plane spotters at the picnic site nearby.

Perhaps I need to go up to Findhorn for a 'fishing trip'.

Does anyone know if they're still there?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

Kansas didn't have anything to do with LRSB. Texas did.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: hwedin

Welcome, and yes "fishing trips" are always fun when it involves clandestine aircraft.


My guess is that they aren't up your way at the moment. The contract award is eminent and they most likely will be at their respective home hangers for that.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Wouldn't the payload and combat radius actually be higher? But these numbers are just published for the public?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Laxpla

Why would they be? They don't need to be B-2 sized anymore and the cost of making them that big would be a lot higher.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stngray
a reply to: Zaphod58
Medium bomber? I'd name it Hustler. Second choice would be Mitchell.


haven't heard that name (hustler) in a long time, I even built a model of it back in the day, because it was such a bad-ass looking bomber.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman
Don't you think Kansas could be a demonstrator of LRS-B ? One could be NG and second B/LM?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Kansas had nothing to do with LRS-B. Nothing.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

No, I don't.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I remember it said that the Texas aircraft - in its associated thread - is likely one of the contenders for the LRS-B contract, but is there any clue as to which company it could be from?

Also, one thing I'm not sure about is why is the LRS-B's range of 2100-2500nm, an advantage over the B2's 6000nm?
Or, worded differently, why is the longer range no longer required?
I am prepared to have the obvious pointed out



originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: hwedin

Welcome, and yes "fishing trips" are always fun when it involves clandestine aircraft.


My guess is that they aren't up your way at the moment. The contract award is eminent and they most likely will be at their respective home hangers for that.

Thanks, that was my thoughts but best to make sure!



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: hwedin

Because the mission has changed. The B-2 was designed as a nuclear strike aircraft from the get go. The new bomber will be a conventional bomber, with a nuclear mission added. The original requirement for the B-2 was 8,000 miles one way, with one refueling, so they could refuel and reach their targets in the Soviet Union. The new bomber will be able to refuel just outside hostile territory, hit their target and refuel on the way out.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That makes a lot of sense.

I was under the impression that this isn't so much of a B-2 replacement as it is a B-2 supplement. An attempt to get 90% of the B-2's capabilities along with more up-to-date stealth as well as some of the EF-111's abilities in the same airframe, with *hopefully* much lower acquisition and maintenance costs.

I'd be very surprised if they aren't benchmarking the maintenance hours per flight hours of these things to be half those of the B-1B. If there's any platform that should be afraid of these things, it's the Bone.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

As mature as the program already is, and as RAM has become, I'd be surprised if it didn't have a MUCH higher mission capable rate for a much lower maintenance per hour cost and requirement.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join