U.S. Air Force Said Poised to Award Bomber Contract Tuesday

a reply to: Sammamishman

I know it was proposed, but was any metal actually bent or the aircraft spotted at least?

When do you think we will see a concept art of Northrop LRS-B ?

a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: aholic

There are three ways around it, all three of which are on the aircraft.

And another that isn't on the aircraft at all! This is the one I'm working on right now. There's another platform out there.

a reply to: anzha

That I don't know and I'd like to think that there was. There was a possible sighting of a pair of them IIRC.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Ah.

I do wish the ATF had played out such that F-23 was bought for the USAF and the F-22 was bought for the US Navy. Besides the cost problems given the end of the Cold War, the previous generations of stealth were probably not great to maintain at sea.

Alas.

a reply to: Zaphod58

a) use passive IR instead of radar
b) use somebody else's radar and receive targeting data
c) LPI ultra-wide band radar and take the risk
d) jam the hostile radar
e) bomb or missile it
f) aliens

how many could I get?

a reply to: mbkennel

All that gear when all you had to do was built a mach 4 screamer.

speed kills, isnt that the saying?

I bet Lockheed design was mach 3 at least, supercruise into mach 2, beast mode the whole 9 yards.

a reply to: BigTrain

It wasn't even designed to be supersonic. They might have been able to get low mach 1 out of it but not much more. Speed costs. You're not getting anywhere near Mach 2 for under $6-700M an aircraft minimum.

And " all that equipment" isn't on the aircraft.

a reply to: BigTrain

I suspect you're wrong, way wrong. If the Lockheed entry was mach 3 it would probably be out of spec for the LRSB contest and it's no wonder they lost. I've never heard you make this claim before, do you actually have a source telling you the Lockheed entry was supersonic? I think it's more likely you're so obsessed with supersonic speed over stealth, and you know we're not going to see the Lockheed entry for months if not years, you're just using it to continue the same speed vs. stealth argument that's derailed thread after thread.

a reply to: mbkennel

IRST is somewhat overrated. It's medium range at best. All three are either currently in use or in development in the white world and known about.

originally posted by: BigTrain
a reply to: mbkennel

All that gear when all you had to do was built a mach 4 screamer.

speed kills, isnt that the saying?

I bet Lockheed design was mach 3 at least, supercruise into mach 2, beast mode the whole 9 yards.

Not under cost constraints!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BigTrain

And " all that equipment" isn't on the aircraft.

We need to find out about this companion aircraft, apparently it flew with both prototypes.

a reply to: aholic

Was this in the US or elsewhere? I still haven't got to the bottom of what was so special about Scotland either....

a reply to: aholic

Are we talking about a new companion or the nighthawk one? I thought I was following this all pretty thoroughly but I guess I'm not.

a reply to: aholic
Do you mean there is another classified Platform ( or companion ) flying along the LRS-B in the long range strike family ?

a reply to: aholic

The P-AEA craft that the DOD hinted at?

a reply to: gfad
a reply to: Aarsvin
a reply to: darksidius
a reply to: Barnalby

I don't think the little bird ever left the US but I don't really know yet. This is not the F-117 companion from the 90's. This one is tailormade for the LRS system.

You have to go back to about 2010 and do some research there. That is the only mention of it before the security classification was clamped down. There was a requirement for a penetrating AEA and jammer, and something even more interesting that involved air to air capability.

I'm finding out from my people that the LRS program, once finished, will be a total of 5 different completely stealth airframes. Only two of which the AF has even started to come clean with. Oh, and it involves the Navy too.

a reply to: aholic

Very interesting, how many manned?

a reply to: aholic

Could the "RQ-180" be part of this LRS system?

Reading the tea leaves, it almost seems as if they're trying to build with the LRS system what the AARS/B-2/F-117/Companion system was. A major stealth surgical strike capability enabled by an even stealthier loitering ISR/target identification system, and aided by a dedicated jamming/A2A platform.

So if that's the case, then:
B-2 --> LRS-B
AARS/Quartz --> "RQ-180"
F-117 companion --> the AEA craft
And my best guess is
F-117 --> USAF/USN UCAV to be revealed

a reply to: Bfirez

1, optionally.