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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

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

www.secretprojects.co.uk...
1st and 3rd posts.

Interesting if true but very few details.




posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Upon reflection, and all of you are free to mock, it occurred to me just because the LRSB is smaller doesn't mean it doesn't have a very, very long range. Potentially longer than the B-2. Additionally, with the marriage of smart munition tech to nuclear weapons, one could easily see a the requirement for payload greatly reduced, too.

With your comment, Zaphod, on the increased readiness and easier maintenance, I could see the LRSB being very functional as well as frightening for the Bad Guys(tm).

I'd bet then, if the above is true, E-attack, survivability (stealth, including against the low f radars) and self defense were emphasized.

Just my two satoshis.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

What everyone is overlooking is that ADVENT is ready for a bomber sized platform. And that will play a role in range. I don't think it'll be a LOT longer ranged than they're saying, but I can see it having a longer range than they're giving.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

here's another article.

www.defensenews.com...


The article says the bird hasn't flown.... ??



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

All of them say it hasn't, which is technically true. The final platform is often different than the prototypes, because they find things that need changing, or that don't work, or come up with things that work a little better.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Makes sense.

I was like. What have I been looking at for the past year then?

lol



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'll come back to my old car analogies again: The B-2 should be thought of as a flying Lotus Carlton or Porsche 959, a batsh*t insane piece of engineering that shattered all expectations of what an aircraft (or car) could and should be. Just as anyone who is lucky enough to own a Lotus Carlton or a Porsche 959 is STILL driving one of the fastest cars on the road, 25+ years after it rolled off of the assembly line, the B-2 is still to this day one of the stealthiest and most capable attack craft flown, a quarter century after it's first flight.

But those capabilities that were decades ahead of their time came with a heavy cost, and just as the Carlton and 959 are temperamental maintenance nightmares with engine rebuild intervals closer to most cars tire rotation intervals, the B-2 was and still is hideously expensive to keep in the air.

Times and technology have changed, though, and today, those same rough performance benchmarks can be reached by far more mundane vehicles. A modern Ford Taurus SHO or Dodge Charger R/T, for instance, is every bit the performer as the Lotus, selling for half in 2015 dollars what the Lotus cost in 1990 ones. Similarly, the modern Nissan GT-R is damn-near identical, performance-wise, to the 959, only it costs $100k in 2015 compared to $225k in 1987. And both modern vehicles are every bit as reliable and inexpensive to keep on the road as your average Ford, Dodge, or Nissan.

Similarly, the I expect the LRS-B will likely cost $500 million apiece in 2015 dollars, compared to the B-2's $800 million apiece in 1990 dollars, be just as invisible/deadly as the B-2 was (for everything but strategic "salt-the-earth" second-strike missions carrying dozens of B83s), and cost as much to maintain as a couple F-35's.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

The RCS of the LRS-B makes the B-2 look like a B-1, and the B-1 look like a B-52 on radar. For 3/4ths of the cost. But the rest of your analogy is pretty much on, again.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Cheers
Makes sense, I assumed that one would want the bomber to be autonomous for as long as possible to maximise the surprise and 'sneakiness'.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Do you think LRS-B will have some sort of capacity in air-air for self defense ?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

No. It will use electronic warfare and stealth to avoid airborne threats.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Even so, you can't hide forever, especially if some can make an ARGUS-T with IR instead of cell phone cameras.

I wonder what it will do then?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

The stealth level on this aircraft is far beyond anything you've ever seen to date. That includes the IR signature.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

The stealth level on this aircraft is far beyond anything you've ever seen to date. That includes the IR signature.


So it uses that thing BAE systems deved to change its IR shape? OR does it actually use stealth cloaking tech to turn invisible?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

The stealth level on this aircraft is far beyond anything you've ever seen to date. That includes the IR signature.


So it uses that thing BAE systems deved to change its IR shape? OR does it actually use stealth cloaking tech to turn invisible?


Wouldn't you like to know



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

They've been playing with effective IR dampening since at least 2007. The BAE system wouldn't work well on an aircraft, because the temperatures are much higher than on a ground vehicle.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   


What everyone is overlooking is that ADVENT is ready for a bomber sized platform. And that will play a role in range. I don't think it'll be a LOT longer ranged than they're saying, but I can see it having a longer range than they're giving.

I think advances in aerodynamics,skin coatings,construction along with engine performance will push the range further than the B2.Slippery new skin along with advanced composites structures will negate weight and drag.It would make sense they scale down the ADVENT at some stage to fit into smaller platforms.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

They already have an AETD that they're talking about putting in the F-35 to try.
edit on 9/3/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Hypothetically speaking if a ADVENT type engine system is in the LRSB... Would you guess it would be GE as they appear ahead in the Nxt Gen Engine race?

a reply to: Zaphod58



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hope they do.

On the other hand, as far as the LRSB announcement goes...are we ready for more TORTURE?!

If Bloomberg is right, the announcement isn't going to happen until October.

*twitch*




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join