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.

 

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

page: 18
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

The winner of the LRS bid had figured out a way around that oh, about 20 years ago. They build one of the highest flying aircraft ever created at the moment and it's not all to do with the width or length of the wings anymore.
edit on 13-11-2015 by aholic because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: Blackfinger

They build one of the highest flying aircraft ever created at the moment and it's not all to do with the width or length of the wings anymore.


What aircraft are you referring to? And don't say the RQ-4 or -180, cause neither of those fit with your argument.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

good point i can think of a lockheed bird that flies pretty friggen damned high



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

There are two ways to getting high (in aviation anyway
), speed and big wings.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

it's interesting he says that wing shape and size has nothing to do with the altitude northrups birds can attain.

some sorta pressure differential created by northrups electrostatic fuselages?

still doubt they fly higher than one lockheed bird I'm thinking of which cruises really really high.
edit on 13-11-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

The Global Hawk is a Northrop bird.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

???????

global hawk is what 60ish.

I'm thinking much much higher than that. and not Northrop



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Speed is a fantastic replacement for wing area, ain't it?

I have no doubt that there are or have been fastmovers flying above 100k feet.

What I'm really intrigued by is the possibility of long-endurance platforms operating at those heights. I remember that some of the AARS/Quartz concepts were supposed to fly at or above 90k feet.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

Speed gets you so far. To linger, you need lift area, not necessarily wing area, but lift area. The F-15 is a good example of what I'm talking about. The shape of the fuselage generates lift as it's flying. It makes a terrible high altitude platform, because it doesn't have nearly enough lift area, but it's a good example of what I mean.

The easiest way to do this is a large wing, ala the U-2 and Global Hawk.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

i wonder if you could use that adaptive wing tech to help with different modes of flight.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
double
edit on 13-11-2015 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

I think they most certainly do. Remember Northrop was a leader in lifting body designs during the HL-10 heyday (FL 900+, Mach 1+) for NASA and that has been incorporated in to almost all their stealth work since. I'd say they're fairly well equipped for extreme high altitude planforms.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Abstract but possibly related question:

Has there been any platforms that have come out of retirement? I know the SR-71 did for a few years in the mid-90s, but I'm thinking of something much faster and much more classified.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
www.defensenews.com...
It look that Pratt and Whitney will power the Northrop LRS-B.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: Blackfinger

The winner of the LRS bid had figured out a way around that oh, about 20 years ago. They build one of the highest flying aircraft ever created at the moment and it's not all to do with the width or length of the wings anymore.


I would quess some kind of electrostatic fuselage like BASSPLYR said, maybe even combined with some sort of variable geometry wings.

My question would be what would power this kind of ultra high flying aircraft. I am only an amateur in this field, but I would think that a J58 for example would not function properly anymore (well) over 100,000 feet. Is this aircraft an air breather, rocket powered or some kind of combination?



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Surely a solar powered, high altitude, stealthy, unmanned airship would be the obvious cost/benefit choice for loiter and height requirements?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

Sounds like a satellite.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

I'm not sure what to think: War is Boring supports the award of the LRS-B to Northrop and states Boeing and Lockheed are actually WORSE at financially managing their programs than Northrop has been historically.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

He's also an idiot. The bomber IS fixed price at this point. The EMD is cost plus, while LRIP 1 is fixed. He also doesn't know what cost controls were built in. He says we can't know anything, then jumps to there being no way Boeing could keep costs down.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm no expert, by any means, but that article is so poorly written and chocked full of glaring errors, it's truly amazing. I'd love to know where this guy gets his "facts." Pathetic.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join