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.

 

Can Somebody Explain

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: intelgurl

OMG Intelgurl out of nowhere!!!!



Thanks for the heads up.

Anything other interesting tidbits that are disclosable?




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

So this is the lrsb.



Zaph has a better idea of what that other one was I'm sure.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

And on the dorito, I think there was a comment by Somebody (Astr0) replying to me, that the glow on the leading edge was indeed notable.

I gotta think something like a JSTARS.


Look for the holes: What sort of missions have no stealth platform in public now?

a) medium bomber (F-111)
b) jstars
c) awacs
d) tanker
e) subhunter


edit on 20-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Was the Wichita bird a Boeing with advent?





posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

I think so, but notice a couple things compared to the Northrop design in the image that intelgurl quoted.

1: The fuselage is longer, wider, and with a more pronounced sweep.

2: The winglets are smaller and positioned farther back.

¡¡¡¡BASELESS SPECULATION ALERT!!!!

There are a couple things that this design difference could indicate. The obvious one is that it likely gets more of it's lift from it's fuselage than say, an X-47B. The slightly less obvious one is that such a sweep angle makes it much more likely that this design might be transonic capable.

Northrop sees its cranked kite planform as a fundamentally new way of designing an aircraft, a way in which the flying wing can truly come into it's own as a family of designs that are infinitely scalable and versatile.

In a way, Northrop sees the cranked kite design as being as fundamental and integral to designing effective composite-bodied stealth aircraft as the "tube and wing" design was to aluminum aircraft. Just as the tube and wing design was adaptable enough that from the 247 and DC-3 onward, it produced aircraft as varied as the 707, the F-104, Concorde, the C-5, the B-1, and the U-2, Northrop sees the cranked kite as having the same sort of potential.

Look at the X-47B, which is basically a cranked kite meant to mimic the flight envelope of an A-6. Like the A-6, it's wider than it is long, with wide, thick wings and a squat fuselage to maximize low-speed lift in order to maximize payload and controllability during CTOL ops. The "kite" still produces the majority of the lift, but the relatively large winglets are still crucial to supplement that lift, and provide large control surfaces/split flaps for fine control, especially with regards to yaw, at the low speeds seen during carrier landings.

Now the mistake that the artist made was in taking the X-47B shape and scaling it up, when the LRS-B will never see anything approaching carrier ops-type takeoff/landing conditions. The key term here is "long range strike", and the closest thing these aircraft will see to an aircraft carrier are the 10,000+ foot runways at Diego Garcia, Kadena, or Guam.

So now Northrop doesn't have to worry as much about low-speed lift and controllability, and is free to make the "kite" proportionally larger, with more room for engines/fuel/bombs/ECM or DEW toys. The winglets are now also able to be sized for efficiency at the higher speeds that the LRS-B will actually be operating at, and are proportionately smaller to help reduce drag and RCS.

Finally, there appears to have been some sort of a desire for transonic performance, which would necessitate a certain sweep angle to manage the shock cone at transonic speeds and keep the wingtips within it so the craft doesn't do a DeHavilland Swallow impression. At the same time, however, it is not a true supersonic design, and so that effective sweep angle (measured between the nose and the wingtips) needs to be nowhere near as aggressive as on, say, a B-1, so it will resemble more the angle of an early 1950s fighter than it does that of a Concorde.

Now look at that Amarillo image, and overlay it with an F-100, a fighter designed with a top speed of Mach 1.3 or so, and you'll see that the effective sweep angles are nearly identical.
edit on 20-1-2016 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

With a leading edge like that I wonder which contractor has the most experience with that sorta thing. What are some of the strengths of that company. That might narrow down her mission.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I look at those long, straight leading edges and I see the potential for HUGE integrated antennas for some sort of low-POI radar or ECM system.

The "flying dorito" design is apparently not as conducive to low observability as some of the other designs out there, and so there has to be a reason why they chose a relatively compromised design, and two of that design's best assets are total wing area (thanks to that straight trailing edge, compared to the stealthier cutouts seen on the B-2, the RQ-170, etc) and those long, unbroken leading edges.

So, like the A-12, it seems like it was designed to carry something relatively heavy, and possibly something that requires long, unbroken leading edges.

My money would be on it being the P-AEA, or possibly a stealth AWACS. With the outlier being some sort prototype for a "day 1" replacement for the F-117, the Companion or possibly both.

I just read the foxtrotalpha piece on the use of F-117's in Desert Storm, and it seems like they were so successful that i have a hard time believing that the USAF would replace the nighthawks without having a similar asset waiting, ready and able. A craft that could be it's own EF-111 while carrying an F-117-sized bomb load would be a hell of a surgical weapon, even if they only had a half dozen or so of them.



edit on 20-1-2016 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Why not put super cruise capable power plant and fly subsonic for stealth but still have the dash capability if and when it was ever required?

Ok, I get the low IR signature for stealth, but wouldn't it be nice if the pilots had a get outta town speed in the event they lost visual stealth and could hi tail it home?

The lockheed design does not give the impression of subsonic with its shape, thats a mach bird there.

Id hope they put the F-22 engines in it for some boost home speed.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

Because that increases costs. To go faster you spend more. Even adding a fairly low supersonic ability would have driven costs beyond what they wanted and needed them to be.

Neither aircraft was capable of anything but maybe low supersonic capability. The RFP didn't call for it and adding it would have priced them out of the competition. The shaping is all about stealth.
edit on 1/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby

I just read the foxtrotalpha piece on the use of F-117's in Desert Storm, and it seems like they were so successful that i have a hard time believing that the USAF would replace the nighthawks without having a similar asset waiting, ready and able.


Ignoring the Companion, isn't F-22 already there?


A craft that could be it's own EF-111 while carrying an F-117-sized bomb load would be a hell of a surgical weapon, even if they only had a half dozen or so of them.


I think they'd want >> range and payload over that.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BigTrain

Because that increases costs. To go faster you spend more. Even adding a fairly low supersonic ability would have driven costs beyond what they wanted and needed them to be.

Neither aircraft was capable of anything but maybe low supersonic capability. The RFP didn't call for it and adding it would have priced them out of the competition. The shaping is all about stealth.


I think the missions they are anticipating include long-distance without many support bases in between (e.g. Pacific) and chances to tank, and so I'm guessing that fuel efficiency is a BIG consideration.

They want 787-level performance on that, with better than B2 observability and thus without a giant front-facing turbofan of course.

Supersonic = gas guzzler.

Sorry, these days are more Prius than Corvette.

edit on 20-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I think you're thinking more LRS-B and he's thinking more Tactical Bomber. With Advent technology you get a 30% increase in efficiency. Why not use it on both and everybody wins. Plus there are some Augmentations I can think of that if combined with Advent would give you range, and a hell of a lot of power and speed when needed. But that would be expensive like Zaph said.

Maybe just have a few, like a dozen, that are set aside and "upgraded" to have that ability.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
"" I have only talked with one Air Force official who has said anything in any detail about the bomber. And it wasn’t much — just that it will be much faster than anything that currently flies such missions. We’ve heard in the last few years about the hot section and other new engine technology work called Advent being done by Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. Will this research provide key technology to boost the new bomber’s speed?""

Extract of an article of Colin Clark, faster than anything doing such mission , for me its say faster than a B-2 or B-52 if b-2 is mach 0.95 and the LRS-B will be faster surely some sort of a dash supersonic capability will be possible. Why higly classified the LRS-B if its just some sort of a mini B-2 ?? why spending billions of dollar to the same capacity ?? why lost precious time to go on the battle area with hours and hours of flight like the antique bombers ? If the LRS-B IS DETECTED over the ennemy territory how it can survive t-50 or futur J-20 killer if its just a B-2 like ? T-50 or Su-35 or J-20 supersonic cruise capability will intercept with no problem the billion dollar baby LRS-B. At for now the stealth is not enough to guaranty the survive surely something else must be added.
edit on 20-1-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Show me a stealth program that ISN'T classified at some level that went active. The LRS-B takes technology to an entirely new level far beyond anything even hinted at prior and you think they're not going to classify it at a high level? Speed isn't classified.

IF it gets detected nothing is going to keep it on sensors for long, and at night it's going to be hard as hell to track it visually. And if they get down low no one in the world will be able to keep up with them.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
You are more expert than me , but can you be sure for 100% it will be not detected ? We speak for ten years than now , how we can be sure the stealth will be the total immune to stay alive over an ennemy territory like China and Russia in ten years ?? The progress of a country like China in weapon system , new fighter and space, for my opinion it can be a mistake to put all the strategy on the stealth. When LRS-B will release weapon over the ennemy surely it will be detected, by some sort of sensors or optical capacity and in this case a mach 2 fighter will be on the area in a short time period. For exemple how many time it take for a fighter to intercept a civilian liner in subsonic speed like the bomber ? If the bomber can escape with a supersonic speed capacity it will be surely difficult for the fighter to join it, if it escape like civilian jet no realy confident for the rest. ( all is my opinion)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

First off, when they're running in or out of the target they're going to be closed up and at their stealthiest. The levels of stealth seen in this aircraft are as close to invisible to radar as humanly possible. It's multi-frequency, not just X-Band.

It won't be completely undetectable, just as no stealth is, but to be detected would be as much sheer dumb luck as anything.

Second, it's not like the F-117 or early B-2 where the bomb bay will be open for a length of time. It will snap open, release the weapon, and snap closed. Unless a radar happens to be looking directly at it, with an operator that knows exactly what he's seeing, the chances of being detected, again, are slim.

And while that mach 2 fighter is burning all its fuel getting to the area that they saw the bomber for a split second, what do you think the bomber is doing? Hanging around and waiting? Once the doors are closed it's gone from radar again and can be in any direction. Your mach 2 fighter gets there and has about 10 minutes to look for it because it's burned all the fuel it carries trying to get to the area.

Third, speed isn't stealthy. If they're 2,000 miles inside China, going mach 2+ they're leaving a huge IR trail that can be seen for dozens of miles or more, and you WILL be detected. If you're subsonic, your full range of radar and IR systems are working. That means once you're low where fighters have trouble following, you're gone.

Speed is not everything.
edit on 1/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
You were almost there, but I think you overestimated what that quote might have been talking about in terms of "much faster".

See this:

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BigTrain

Because that increases costs. To go faster you spend more. Even adding a fairly low supersonic ability would have driven costs beyond what they wanted and needed them to be.

Neither aircraft was capable of anything but maybe low supersonic capability. The RFP didn't call for it and adding it would have priced them out of the competition. The shaping is all about stealth.


Speed is expensive, and it also tends not to play well with the shapes and coatings needed to give an aircraft the kind of "stealth at all costs" design that the B-3 will almost certainly have. And it eats gas, lots and lots of gas, which is much better used to loiter over a target, or hit multiple targets in a sortie. PGMs are an effective force multiplier, allowing 20,000 pounds of ordinance to do the damage that you used to need 200,000lbs to do, so a single aircraft will by necessity likely need to hit multiple, spread-out targets in the course of a mission.

Now that doesn't preclude an allowance for some sort of high-speed "dash" capability, where the aircraft could hit the kinds of speeds that a 1950's fighter would. Say, mach 1.0-1.3, the transonic range where heating, aerodynamics, and sonic booms aren't as much of an issue, and where it could still cover ground at nearly 1.5x the speed that the Mach .83 B-2 could. To an engineer or military planner, that's still "much faster" than a B-2, in the same way that an F-100 was "much faster" than a P-80, or a B-47 was "much faster" than a B-29.

So, as I speculated earlier, what we should expect in terms of performance (and payload) will be something along the lines of a wide-spectrum stealth Avro Vulcan, meaning it will cruise in the high mach .9's, and have the ability to hit mach 1.2-3 in a pinch (ironically, while carrying ~20,000lbs of ordinance). Now luckily for this bird, those 60 years of engine improvements mean it's ADVENTs will give it a range that the Avro engineers could have only dreamed of, while still having enough reserve power to go transonic on dry thrust alone. For comparison, the poor Vulcan's overworked turbojets could only manage that in a shallow dive, and it had a combat radius closer to an F-22's than the 787-like range that this craft will have.

It's not as "sexy" on the surface as a hypersonic bomber, or even a true B-1 replacement would be, but it's in many ways an even more impressive technological achievement, and it will certainly make the B-2 look like a creaking old lady in comparison.

Going back to the old Avro, if the B-3 is even half as sexy as the Vulcan was, it'll be one of the most iconic aircraft ever flown by the USAF.

As to what it might look like, here's the fruits of my butcher-like photoshop skills:

edit on 20-1-2016 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby
Yes it look like there is a lot of similarities, just difference of the round nose on the Northrop teaser. Don't you thing either a some sort of variable swept wing on the LRS-B ? Is it possible for another propulsion system than the ADVENT ? Variable swept wing will be very interesting in the different kind of mission, back the wing for dash speed, and deploy the wing for persistent on the battlefield.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Im simply suggesting dropping in an F-119 engine (or 4) so the LRS-b has super cruise so its not on afterburner and can jump to Mach 1.6 for a few minutes to get out of there. I doubt this would take much $$ at all.

Are you saying thats too expensive also? The airframe wouldn't survive going a bit faster for a short period of time?

Do flying wings just come apart above mach 1?
edit on 21-1-2016 by BigTrain because: change # of engines



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

It's not just a matter of putting a bigger engine in something, and it goes faster. That's like saying you can take your old Mustang, drop a C6 Corvette engine into it, and it will go 140 mph without any problems. The airframe has be designed to take the stress of more speed, the materials have to be designed to take the heat of the extra speed and retain their stealth characteristics, your IR suppression system has to be able to keep up with it, your EW systems have to be that much more capable to keep up with it. And yes, that costs a LOT more.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join