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.

 

This is the amazing Lockheed Martin SR-72—the space Blackbird

page: 13
38
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


Oh it's certainly feasible. There's no reason not to, if they really wanted to.




posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


It was actually up for the PAK-DA competition that recently ended, for their new bomber as well.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


ya know, I was doing a bit of research into the B3 program (ya know, subsonic replacement manned and relatively cheap replacement for the b2) and then came across some wiki info for the b3 NGB that directly pointed to what seemed like the sr-72 as a replacement!

"On 25 January 2008, Boeing and Lockheed Martin announced an agreement to embark on a joint effort to develop a new U.S. Air Force strategic bomber, with plans for it to be in service by 2018.[18] This collaborative effort for a long-range strike program will include work in advanced sensors and future electronic warfare solutions, including advancements in network-enabled battle management, command and control, and virtual warfare simulation and experimentation.[19] Under their joint arrangement, Boeing, the No. 2 Pentagon supplier, would be the primary contractor with about a 60% share, and Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor, would have around a 40% share, according to sources familiar with the companies' plans.[20] Northrop Grumman, another major defense contractor, received $2 billion in funding in 2008 for "restricted programs" – also called black programs – for a demonstrator that could fly in 2010.[21] On 1 March 2010, Boeing said that the joint project with Lockheed Martin had been suspended.[22]

The air force was expected to announce late in 2009 its precise requirements for a new bomber that would be operating by 2018.[23] In May 2009, testimony before Congress, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates mentioned that the Pentagon is considering a pilotless aircraft for the next-generation bomber role.[24] Then in April 2009, Defense Secretary Gates announced a delay in the new generation bomber project that would push it past the 2018 date.[25] This was caused not only by budget considerations, but also by nuclear arms treaty considerations.[26]"

Source

All these setbacks that are discussed in source make me reconsider if we'll see this publically prior to 2018



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


The NG program was NOT the new bomber.

And Boeing and LM have teamed up again, but flipped roles. That's for the LRS-b program though.

We probably won't see this public prior to 2018, just because of the timeline that they set when they released this.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


so NG was the precursor to LRS-b Heavy in other words? The govt squabbled over needs and necessities, and decided they'd rather go with a non next gen because of budget crises?

Well my guess is for the 72, even though its suppsed to be a surveil/recon its going to end up as was previously stated, a multi role nuke bomber /ISR platform
edit on 2-11-2013 by kingofyo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


No, the NG aircraft was a totally different project, not related to the new bomber at all.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


When you say new bomber, you are speaking of the 72, or the b3?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

flyandi
I wouldn't be surprised if there are several working units already in operation and I am pretty sure that I saw this flying twice over the past years - dart-like shape.

With the surprising quick launch of DDG-1000 and now this, I wonder what's going on? Why suddenly all the openness and putting info into the public view?


The reason why the aircraft and weapons platforms that were kept 'secret' for a little while longer in the 70's and 80's, was because we (the US) were involved with a little something called the Cold War, at the time.. Where nearly everything was kept from prying eyes, that didn't need to be seen or known about. Simply because, we HAD to stay ahead of our adversaries, on the military technological advancement front, with our weapons systems.

Now that we aren't actively involved in a potential world war conflict with said country adversaries.. We might put out information regarding our latest 'white world' military tech advances, to instill a sense of authority, power, and supremacy, into all.. Both foreign and domestic..

As another ATS'er said... 'Fear us'

But back in the time of the Cold War, we didn't really know the true potential of our adversaries forces and their technological capabilities. Now that we are without a doubt, the most powerful nation in human history, with the most intelligence gathered on all potential country adversaries, we don't have that 'fear of the unknown' of what our enemies might have. We know we have the best and always will be ahead of everyone else, with our military might.

So if anything, purposely leaking info to the world on things such as this, just further embeds that 'fear us' into everyone else's minds... Quite possibly giving others the thought that what we're showboating with 'SR-72' info, is our greatest tech at work... We probably have already been using that tech for years, and it's proven it's capabilities well. What they don't know, is that we already have greater and better things, in the works... Ultimately, giving said adversaries, a false sense of our own technological accomplishments, when in fact, we're actually much further ahead.


'White world' tech announcements is all smoke and mirrors, ladies and gents!


Nothing to see here, move along.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


The LRS-b program.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


from what I'm looking at regarding the LRS-b it seems like a nice concept, but has it been shelved or still in dev phase?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


It's still in development. It's been delayed a few years, and they're making a few changes to the contract for it, but it's still coming.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I'm sure you have seen the pictures of the concept, right?


Do you feel that the final draft (whenever the hell it shows its face) will be the same/similar to this?
edit on 2-11-2013 by kingofyo1 because: picture



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


More than likely. It will probably be an optionally manned flying wing design.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


It seems the wing shape because of its stealthiness has become the go-to bomber design... Just wish we'd get a wee more in the way of information regarding them!

Back to the discussion of the 72... I realize that multi role has become the main attraction of newer craft, so on top of ISR its also to be pinned as a possible bomber. What(if any) effect will this have on its reduction in flight abilities? I'm guessing, because of the added weight of any munitions, and the fact that its still based off of a hydrocarbon fuel source(JP7) instead of going with the exotic liquid methane/hydrogen propulsion system, its still going to leak like a sieve on the tarmac like the 71 from heat expansion joints and there's going to be less room for fuel which will equate to shorter flight times as well as maybe lower speeds/heights?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
We will be discussing this awesome thread on ATS live! tonight.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

ps/Zaph call in!



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


As Zaph's self-appointed manager of Public Relations, I'll have him do whats in his best interests if he does decide to call... Which is to say nothing self incriminating!


Really though, it'd be great to get him on since he's got a lot of knowledge of aircraft past present and future in that brain of his!



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


Not really. You can actually use the weapons bays for more equipment if you really want to. So you aren't really losing anything by having weapons bays.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


I'll try to. It's going to depend on if we get loaded on time or not. If we get loaded on time, then I promise to try really hard to call in. If we don't, then it's anyone's guess.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


There wouldnt be some sort of external fuel tank like the f-16s have on the 72, so what I'm really asking, I guess, is could the extra equipment bays also house a separate fuel tank? That seems feasible to me to increase range for a longer mission



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kingofyo1
 


Sure. They used to do it with the B-1s occasionally. No reason they couldn't with this too.




top topics



 
38
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join