LRS-B Will be Much more that Just a Bomber

a reply to: Zaphod58

Mach 2 dash speed?

If you say no here as well, then it really is disappointing.

Im all for slow turtle speed cruise if the plane can stay uber-stealthy and no radar on eareth can detect it, but lets say you send a bomber into hostile airspeed and just luck of the draw, your enemy decides to do a live fire training mission with oh say IDK 50 planes unannounced and now your bomber is spotted....

Wouldnt a mach 2+ dash not be at least a good idea? Or is losing the most advanced plane in the worlds history to a 30mm canon acceptable?

a reply to: BigTrain

Speed is out, stealth is in. Faster is easier to detect due to friction on the surfaces, the larger thrust required, and other fun challenges of supersonic flight. If you are putting a strategic bomber into enemy territory, the likelihood of them doing training missions in that political environment goes down substantially, and increases the likelihood of them doing missions that involve coming to kill you. Furthermore, a dash ability is not going to protect you from those 30mm cannons when they are mounted onto a fighter aircraft, while IR and radar stealth will protect you substantially from the missiles that need such things for firing solutions.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yuppa

The lawn chair is for naps. When the B-2 flew their non stop missions they put them in the cockpit to lay down on and take naps.

I'd go with a bean bag chair, or one of those inflatable couches from the 90's

And this is probably why I'm not a B-2 pilot...

a reply to: BigTrain

I can't give out the numbers but the RCS of the bomber is unprecedented. It's low enough that experienced people stopped dead when they heard what it is. It makes the B-2 look like a B-1 on radar.

Just wondering how mature is Optical Camouflage now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So what does that mean?

It's like a grain of sand?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I remember watching tv a couple years ago, they said F/A-22 RCS was equal to a golf ball, and F-35 RCS was equal to a basketball. But now we see they are actually smaller. And that B-2 RCS was equal to a bumble bee.

a reply to: grey580

Very very small. Better than the B-2.

originally posted by: Darkpr0
a reply to: BigTrain

Speed is out, stealth is in. Faster is easier to detect due to friction on the surfaces, the larger thrust required, and other fun challenges of supersonic flight. If you are putting a strategic bomber into enemy territory, the likelihood of them doing training missions in that political environment goes down substantially, and increases the likelihood of them doing missions that involve coming to kill you. Furthermore, a dash ability is not going to protect you from those 30mm cannons when they are mounted onto a fighter aircraft, while IR and radar stealth will protect you substantially from the missiles that need such things for firing solutions.

You ever tried tracking th e black triangles? they can hit mach 4 and above and due to their ability to bend the air around them nearly impossible to track unless you know what youre looking for.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I believe a -70db rcs was referenced here recently about a certain coming bomber. With the f35 being in the -30 to -40db range

So who won already..I thought today was the day

a reply to: Zaphod58

Is that because you don't know the numbers?

a reply to: C0bzz

Anyone who knew the EXACT numbers isn't going to tell you a: what they are or b: that they know.

Obviously there is a historical trend in the rumored RCS's of such programs so armed with Wikipedia (and a bit of common sense) you can probably get a good idea of likely MINIMUM capabilities yourself.

Looking forward to the big reveal...hope we're not dissapointed.

Surely for the RCS but you take an enormous risk to base the survivability only on the stealth, we speak for a plane staying at least for 4 decade, its not impossible China and Russia build a system of detection different than the radar and stealth can become obsolete , if so your complete stealth fleet can reach the ground because if ennemy can see you at this time the capacity of speed or maneuver can make the difference between the life and the dead. Since all the time its the game between the sword and the shield. For sure something else of the stealth will be need in a near futur for survive. Another problem with slow plane is the mobile target how you destroy them if you make a lot of hours to go on the target ??

a reply to: Zaphod58

I believe you that the RCS is basically zero, but that doesnt mean anything to me.

Can you see the bomber with your eyes? Visual stealth would be MUCH more impressive if your flying at 600 MPH and not my dream of mach 5.

It would be one heck of a product rollout to have CNN / FOX go live to a hanger that appears empty.....then maybe youll get the $500M per unit.

a reply to: BigTrain

Seeing how the US flies a lot of night missions. It will be hard to see with your eyes.

I think it would be more impressive if it floats out the hanger silently.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: BigTrain

Seeing how the US flies a lot of night missions. It will be hard to see with your eyes.

I think it would be more impressive if it floats out the hanger silently.

Remember that ATS and th einternet will melt....twice when that happens

a reply to: yuppa

I dont think its a stretch at all to think skunk works or phantom works or another even more secretive government collaboration has cracked the anti-gravity dream.

If you can manipulate the electromagnetic force, you can do anything.

A wing like we saw in Texas would be a difficult airframe to fly supersonic. A wing with a larger angled sweep would be less difficult to fly fast, think of the Dassault family of delta wings.

a reply to: Flipper35

I think you mean lower angle