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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Details of the Boeing Protest for the B-21 Raider Contract Award Revealed

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
By the way I'm just playing Devil's advocate here for fun, because it's an interesting subject and I'm curious to learn more from yall guys as the conversation proceeds. I understand that the B-21 is green light and I can't do anything about that.

It's an entertaining conversation.
edit on 11/2/2016 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

In this respect though it's just the classic UAV vs Manned bomber argument, although you seem to be on the side of suicide explosive UAVs that have the word tomahawk written on the side


The only difference between having a quarterback UAV managing a cruise missile swarm and a B-21 QBing a swarm of PGMs that it's dropped is the centralization of command and decision making which is provided by the pilot.

Also philosophical arguments involving pilots but that's an issue for a different forum.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

The entire point to manned platforms is flexibility. A cruise missile gives you zero flexibility. Yes, you can retarget the newer missiles, but with a manned platform, you can orbit near a target area, and if you need to go in, you do. If you decide not to, you turn around and come home. A manned platform, like the B-21, can orbit over an area for hours waiting to see if troops need support, a cruise missile can't. You can also use different size munitions with a bomber, as opposed to a Tomahawk which gives you a one size warhead.

You can argue til you're blue in the face, but an all missile/UAV force is never going to happen, and it never should happen.
edit on 11/2/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Waiting,waiting..



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Anyone have any Idea how hard Boeing is pushing the protest? Such as are they just going through the motions to keep stock holders happy or do they really think they got screwed?



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

The protest is done. Their only other option would be a lawsuit, but it doesn't appear that they're going to go that route. It looks like there are other things in the works behind the scenes.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
There is a change happening with the defence forces world wide,out with the old,in with the new and money going into new ideas and platforms.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Good news then.. Last thing I want is another KC-X type debacle.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: hawkguy
a reply to: Zaphod58

Is the low RCS a carryover from the RQ-180? Having done some reading on it earlier today it seemed to be a game changer when it was introduced, particularly compared to the -170 (although the roles did diverge quite a bit between the two).

I'd imagine the NG team would have a pretty full toolbox regarding RCS minimization coming into the program, particularly regarding deep strike within gnarly IADS.


At lower frequencies, which are becoming more of the concern, shaping matters less. However, lower frequency radar is less precise: it cannot localize as well and it cannot distinguish craft as well----which is why the move was always up in frequency since 1941 as soon as faster electronic devices were developed.

At lower frequencies, the skin matters less but it just sees the internal skeleton of metal as a big dipole or quadrupole. So aircraft start to look alike. You may know Something is Out There, but you wouldn't really know reliably if it were a fighter, a tanker, a civilian craft, etc. And what if you see 30 of Them out there. Which is the B-21 and which is the cheap drone?

Also, at lower frequencies, active countermeasures becomes easier---back to the future. How would you spoof radar in 1951? The physics doesn't change, but now you have far better computers & models now. I can imagine it being rather "simple" to actively shape the apparent dipole & quadrupole moments to be whatever you program them to be. Active deception---make the craft appear on radar to be multiple craft, or somewhere else is a major approach.

Also, because of physics, any sort of lower frequency radar antenna with useful gain will be large, and not too mobile, i.e. easier to attack.

And we have no idea about what sort of active optical stealth there may be implemented, if optical is the last way to track it.

Very high altitude attack might be coming back. High enough, and you are invisible to naked eye, and would require a good telescope & image recognition. If you had wartime means to cool exhaust (even temporarily for the critical mission minutes) then the IR spectrum could be mostly shifted down to bands where the atmosphere is more opaque.

All in all, you would want to get the all-band detection/tracking range to be no greater than say 60 miles. With high enough speed & altitude the craft could drop JDAM-ER's.


edit on 3-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Ah yes, I know some of those words.

Jokes aside, that's very informative! I had no idea that shaping didn't play as big a role as with higher frequencies. From my understanding regarding low frequency radar it'd be pretty difficult to use it to generate any sort of fire control solution or tracking for SAMs.

I could foresee a situation where a LF radar reveals theres a "something" flying up there, but not exactly what or where, and then they're unable to achieve any sort of lock with a tracking radar due to HF stealth properties of the aircraft.

I'm just guessing here, is this something that might be accurate?



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: hawkguy

It's an interesting challenge. Low frequency radars are getting better at localizing, but stealth is getting better at preventing it from seeing it at all. A true multi frequency stealth platform has yet to fly, but what's out there hums the tune pretty well.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

FYI.

Robotech is now on Netflix.

So rewatch when you wish.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join