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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Just been quoting Mabus. The Air Force disagrees with Mabus, but that's not a surprise.
edit on 5-9-2015 by anzha because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

And in June they announced that the sixth Gen will be manned with an unmanned capability for the F/A-XX.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting. Somehow I missed that.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

It was fairly quiet. It was almost said in passing in an article.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting.

I've been mulling the 6th gen and what its supposed to do. I'd swear you need more than two people for all the roles they want the sucker to do (fighter, drone controller, EW and hacker...). Automation only gets you so far. As much as *I* think they need a Prowler cockpit, I doubt that will happen either.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

The computer in the sixth Gen will make the software on the F-35 look like an F-15s. There are Grey computer advancements that are staggering. Programs in the 90s and early 2000s that just disappeared after announcing they were going better than expected and were preparing for the next phase of testing.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That worries me then. Look at the delivery issues for the F-35 software, for example. The more complicated something is, the more it can be exploited, too.

Having been up the afterburner of all the nonclassified computer architecture for that last 15 years and now seeing the end of Moore's, I'll be skeptical. But then again, I'm not infallible.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

These systems have been mature and in some cases active for several years. It's a matter of getting them to talk, which will be relatively simple.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.


The losers will pick up contract work, just like Boeing picked up a great deal of the B-2 manufacturing. None of the bidders will come out of the selection process in worse shape than they entered it. It's just more fun (and profitable) to be the prime.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

It's going to be a drought like we haven't seen after the announcement. The big project will be the T-X until the F-XX and F/A-XX or KC-Y programs, neither of which looks like it will be until around 2020 or after.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There's going to be a great deal of LRS-B work to spread around. Losing the competition doesn't mean you won't get LRS-B work. Northrop won the ATB contest, but Boeing still picked up a very large amount of work from the program. LRS-B will have even more stuff sub-contracted given the number of systems, I'm sure.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

From what I have read, the subs seems to be already lined up for the LRS-B. They'll be made public once the award is done. I suspect if there's any spreading planned, its already planned in detail and done deal wise given the maturity we are hearing about from the designs.

We'll see. I could be completely wrong.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Another article.


www.defensenews.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

At least officially, Northrop sure sounds bullish in that article. Not that there's anything to it, but the events of the next month or so will be interesting to see as they pan out...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

War is Boring, major F-35 haters, have weighed in on the B-3, ahem, LRS-B.

They show a Lockheed-Boeing picture that I thought was from Northrop.

hmm.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Yes, they screwed up on that one. That is NG's concept.

This is Boeing's:




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: anzha

Yes, they screwed up on that one. That is NG's concept.

This is Boeing's:



Boengs version sucks. its so ugly.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

Boengs version sucks. its so ugly.


And we know that ugly planes always suck...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: yuppa

Boengs version sucks. its so ugly.


And we know that ugly planes always suck...


Not always but the A-10 is so ugly its beautiful.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
The picture was for the NGB program not for the LRS-B, we saw it on the net since 2007/2008 before the LRS-B program, when you look at the NG picture it has nothing to see with the NG LRS-B tease of this year.
edit on 9-9-2015 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join