Can Somebody Explain

Any of the two drawing doesn't look like the Kansas dorito witnesses last year , there is surely another thing in the sky. For the concept picture of Northrop it have a round nose, not like the X-47b sacle up of the picture , and the planform of the wing d'ont look like the Grey580 picture. Why a round nose , what is the advantage in aerodynamic ?

a reply to: darksidius

I thought it was more or less common knowledge here (thanks to Zaph, etc!) that the 2014 sightings were two separate craft, and that only one of them had anything to do with the LRS-B.

Given the graininess and the rough planform similarities, its fairly safe to say that the Amarillo bird was the fabled Northrop LRS-B demonstrator aircraft. I also have reason to believe (thanks mostly to those Northrop ads and a little to the sighting itself) that while the Northrop LRS-B design shares basic planform similarities to the craft seen in the "Building the B-3" image, it differs in terms of proportions, with a proportionately larger and longer "kite" section, and proportionally smaller wingtips, set further back.

We still have no clue what was seen over Wichita though.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Bfirez

yep.

Is it possible that the cranked kite is just a flying wing with retractable wings so it can turn into a kite and be the best of both worlds?

a reply to: intelgurl

How fast can we surmise the Boeing/Lockheed entry was? That shape screams fast mover.Id say that shape was Mach 2+ easy.

a reply to: BigTrain

I think it all depends on destination of each platform. Think about B-2 and F-22. B-2 was designed to fly slow but it won't be noticed by any radar but if you think about F-22 - it's definately other story.

If I had to guess I think Mach 1 is the Lockheed's speed.

Sorry to post a random question it is slightly on topic, page 1 BASS said that LM were unhappy that NG got the b-2 funding. I'm just curious but what was LMs design that was up against the B-2.

Probably the most stupidest question there for you avgeeks lol

a reply to: Barnalby
Ok for that , so the mystery kansas triangle is still the mystery. For the Amarillo picture I look it very carefully and on the picture we saw three plane coming it look like two craft are the same and the craft in the middle doesn't look like the two other more triangle shape with no wing ?

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

Senior Peg:

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...

a reply to: BigTrain

The alleged LoBo planform on the cover page reminds me of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser, which notably was not supersonic. It would not surprise me if that LRS-B configuration included canards to trim pitch more precisely during loiter - among other reasons.

a reply to: BigTrain

Both entries were high subsonic, maybe low supersonic. Not mach 2+.

a reply to: Sammamishman

ATB was the Aurora?

interesting.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Then, if the B-3 image is to be at least somewhat believed, I can see the designs breaking down like this:

LockBo: Leveraging Lockheed's quiet boom technology that may or may not actually be proven, and leveraging Boeing's experience designing the Sonic Cruiser, I can see those two design families merging together into a platform capable of Mach .9-1.3 cruising while producing a negligible sonic boom. In essence, the same flight profile as the Aerion (over the US) and a couple of the other SSBJ proposals. Combine those design goals with the realities of the chines, etc needed for stealth, and you can tell where the upper design on the "building the B-3" image may have come from, as it looks like the Sonic Cruiser, an SSBJ, and the Tacit Blue thrown in a blender. Given it's design as a transonic-native craft, I'd imagine that some compromises needed to be made to save weight, etc, and I'm guessing that while it's ADVENTs would have been powerful enough for it to supercruise, that IR performance might have suffered and the fluidic vectoring system that's commonly seen paired with the ADVENT in diagrams would also be withheld, with the craft instead relying entirely on its control surfaces.

Basically, in terms of performance, look at it as an Avro Vulcan for the 21st century.

NorGrum: Building on the B-2 and the X-47B, Northrop's design would be a familiar cranked-kite shape, using extensively buried ADVENTS for propulsion. It is not a transonic native design, instead having a cruising flight envelope nearly identical to the B-2. It does, however have much more in the way of IR suppression thanks to its buried engines, and its fluidic thrust vectoring combined with advanced boundary layer control systems allows it to fly "clean" like the B-2 and control itself without needing to deflect its control surfaces much, if at all, which gives it a lower RCS than the LockBo design. In terms of speed, its cranked kite design, with the winglets set farther back on a much more elongated diamond-shaped fuselage than on the shorter, wider, carrier landing-optimized X-47B, allows it to hit speeds of Mach .9-1.2 in a dash, with the advanced control systems allowing it the yaw, etc control to hit such speeds safely. However, at those speeds it will create louder booms and it's not able to maintain such speeds for nearly as long as the much more optimized LockBo design would.

Basically, in terms of performance, if the LockBo design was the Vulcan, the NorGrum design would be more like the Handley-Page Victor.

Industrial base concerns aside, the sticking points for the LockBo design would be the weight management and composite airframe required to hit the needed efficiency levels so that it could sonic cruise effectively while carrying an adequate payload, as it would be a much more aerodynamically ambitious design. Meanwhile, the sticking points for the NorGrum design would likely be controllability and integrating its various different advanced aerodynamic control systems, with weight/performance being slightly less critical than on the LockBo bird.

originally posted by: darksidius
a reply to: Barnalby
Ok for that , so the mystery kansas triangle is still the mystery. For the Amarillo picture I look it very carefully and on the picture we saw three plane coming it look like two craft are the same and the craft in the middle doesn't look like the two other more triangle shape with no wing ?

I thought the two were B2s and the one in the middle was something that kind of looked like a B2?

Who are we at war with, again, that we need to spend so much to bomb them?

I get a little confused in this old brain of mine.

a reply to: Blue Shift

The largest portion of our bomber fleet is 60 years old, and is incapable of being more than a missile truck at the start of any fight. There is a third generation of a family flying them. The youngest of our bomber fleet is about to turn 25. If you wait until you're at war with someone, you're not going to develop anything in time to fight. It takes years to develop an aircraft, and this one won't reach fully operational for 10 years or more.

a reply to: Blue Shift
Do you have a TV at your home ?? War is everywhere not difficult to know why there is a very fast need of new bomber.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Governments don't just spend money for current wars, they also spend money to prepare for potential future wars.

originally posted by: TAGBOARD
a reply to: BigTrain

The alleged LoBo planform on the cover page reminds me of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser, which notably was not supersonic. It would not surprise me if that LRS-B configuration included canards to trim pitch more precisely during loiter - among other reasons.

I thought the retractable canards were for lower takeoff/landing speeds and on the NG bird the reason they almost lost the unit.

Is it me or is the Lockheed entry altering wing geometries before its sprint during this promo?

a reply to: Jukiodone

Yes it is