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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

That's the latest they can name it or lose more budget. They're aiming for this month but I'd necessary will slip to October.




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
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*


Gotta love them OCTOBER SURPRISES!!



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   
www.flightglobal.com...

Sorry the link isn't working on my iPad.

This goes further and says there is no flying demonstrator! Artistic licence with the announcement?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick
"There has been talk of an unmanned sidekick, like the Lockheed Martin D-21 reconnaissance drone for the M-21 Blackbird"
Interesting since the start USAF speak of a family of system, I would like to see a drone and a bomber doing mission in concert




posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
One thing I just want cleared in my own mind: this LRS-B is likely to be a medium bomber, that will use very well developed versions of existing technologies, in order to allow plenty to be built for 'reasonable cost'.

But that there currently exists another programme, the 2037 bomber, which will be a true heavy bomber, with a payload in the ~70,000lb range, which will likely push hard with breakthrough new technologies that push the edge of what is possible...which could mean multi-spectral stealth as well as supersonic (hypersonic)? performance, DE weapons of amazing capability and other goodies that now are just a pipe dream. It may take another 20 years to develop that capability...it can be done if the costs are spread out so well. And much of what is done for this bomber may be able to retroactively fitted to the LRS-B, which is being built on modular principles.

Or has the LRS-B canned that need?
edit on 5/9/2015 by Borys because: Bad typos!



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

Technically no. As I said above, there are frequently changes between the prototypes and final design. So technically they're not flying them yet.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
"powered by an advanced derivative of an existing engine" great chance for ADVENT ?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

More speculation at Defense News. This one is heavier on the business side implications.

For some reason, I really like the idea of cranked kite vs polecat, but the Texas pictures seem to show a more solid triangle. Somewhat more inline with the giant manned Phanton Ray.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

We're almost certainly going to see a huge shakeup from the fallout of this one. Two of the three have essentially nothing outside the bomber.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder if we might see a semi split award for the LRS-B since its supposedly a "family of systems:" UAVs built by a competitor, for example.

6th Gen (F-X and FA-XX) has started and I wonder if they might take the same tact with that as they did with the LRS-B.

UCLASS is up. If the Navy can figure it out.

Someone is doing the RQ-180.

The Navy IS considering more Growlers because of the cyber mission.

I am sure there is more. The question is whether or not the Pentagon will be smart enough to fix their screw ups with the industrial base.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

The family includes the current bombers. It's not all new aircraft.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Definitely realize that.

I was just thinking the UAVs, etc, that would go with would be made by a competitor.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

It won't be enough. UAV contracts are pennies. They need something fairly big to keep them going until the 6th Gen starts.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes and no.

We're not likely to see another monster program like the F-35.

The F-22 program was $66B. The LRS-B (if they stick to their $550M/plane) will be $55B.

In contrast, the Reaper program has spent almost $12B. The Global Hawk program has spent ~$10B.

While UCLASS or another other UCAV won't be $50B, I could see a smallish number of UCAV/UAV programs being done, not to mention black projects, to keep the bands together if they lose the LRSB contract. Plus Growlers. Because we know the Navy LOVES the F-35.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

The problem becomes the company on question becoming geared towards unmanned aircraft. If they aren't very careful it will be hard to get back into the manned role.

And yeah, the numbers look big, but that was spread over quite a period of time.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What? You don't think the F-35 was the last manned navy plane???



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

They've already said both the F-XX and F/A-XX will be manned.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Mabus had stated differently for the FA-XX.

Its too early. I'd strongly bet manned, but you never know with those crazy kids.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

They've said F/A-XX will be manned with an unmanned capability. UCLASS will be on the decks by then, but the fighters will be optionally manned.
edit on 9/5/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

They've said F/A-XX will be manned with an unmanned capability. UCLASS will be on the decks by then, but the fighters will be optionally manned.


Which means if th epilot is killed or loses consciousness it wont crash. i f its lucky.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join