LRS-B (new stealth bomber) speculation

a reply to: boomer135

Please don't tell me the f22 and the f35 is the best we've got for the fighter roll. That would be a major bummer. It would be a little more comforting if there was something already deployed thats better than the f22 or f35.

i1.wp.com...

a reply to: boomer135

That's actually one of the reasons they retract. By retracting almost into the leading edge of the wing, you eliminate the angles that make them less stealthy, as well as change the airflow over the wing, which makes you more maneuverable.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: boomer135

Please don't tell me the f22 and the f35 is the best we've got for the fighter roll. That would be a major bummer. It would be a little more comforting if there was something already deployed thats better than the f22 or f35.

OK what jet is better than the F-22? Its unmatched right now in the world.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

That's actually one of the reasons they retract. By retracting almost into the leading edge of the wing, you eliminate the angles that make them less stealthy, as well as change the airflow over the wing, which makes you more maneuverable.

Yeah I get that but it would be damn near impossible to retract them all the way into the wing and make it flush with no visible bumps or anything on the surface. They would have to be like shark teeth or something.

originally posted by: EBJet
i1.wp.com...

looks like the bat plane! was wayne industries one of the companies that has a flying prototype lol

a reply to: boomer135

You don't have to retract it all the way. All you have to do is angle it so that if the radar hits it, the beam gets bounced back at a different angle.

But in this case, it goes almost flush with the leading edge. Once it's retracted into the stowed position, it's close enough to the leading edge that the airflow over the after portion of the wing and fuselage changes pretty drastically, so there's not much of a gap between the two.

I found it!



Not really. But it was pretty damned funny! Source

a reply to: _Del_

All sorts of neat gadgets to put into something to scurry here or there.

Wellllllllllllll . . . I'm still inclined to believe my close relative . . . who worked at S-4, IIRC . . .

who declared quite emphatically around 1970 . . . that we had . . . 'platforms'

which could INSTANTANEOUSLY carry recon or nuke or whatever loads to any spot on the planet . . . some piloted . . . some totally under computer control.

At least such is not that hard to find plausible . . . given various 'whistle blower' etc. claims over the decades since.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: _Del_

All sorts of neat gadgets to put into something to scurry here or there.

Wellllllllllllll . . . I'm still inclined to believe my close relative . . . who worked at S-4, IIRC . . .

who declared quite emphatically around 1970 . . . that we had . . . 'platforms'

which could INSTANTANEOUSLY carry recon or nuke or whatever loads to any spot on the planet . . . some piloted . . . some totally under computer control.

At least such is not that hard to find plausible . . . given various 'whistle blower' etc. claims over the decades since.

So you find it "not too hard" to
to believe that over 40 years ago they had this tech. Technology that allowed "instantaneous" delivery of whatever payload they wanted to any location of their choosing.

Unless the little grey men from Roswell helped provide the us military with a quantum leap in technological abilitites then I think your relative had watched one ep too much of star trek or was having a mighty pull of your leg.

Hypersonic capable bomber, doubtful but possible. Teleportation, wormholes or a physical vehicle that could instantly jump to even a fraction the speed of light in an instant...no way I'm buying that!

a reply to: big_BHOY

Certainly he asserted that we got the technology from the critters.

He didn't elaborate. I doubt he knew much to elaborate from.

He did believe the German scientist he worked directly for, however. The guy's name was not a household name but he was not an unknown either. I don't remember the name specifically.

If the critters use other 'dimensions' in their travels . . . lots of things seem plausible.

The next technology leap should be a bomber that can orbit, or suborbit-- like a ballistic missile. Computer controlled stabilization could make a suitably modified plane able to leap, skid and slide into a low orbit. A plane designed specifically to fly fast in almost zero atmospheric resistance could go anywhere in the world in a few hours, or less.

Any bomber that can't do that is probably covering for the real one.

No Time or Speed Limits

​The Air Force will buy the 80-100 Long-Range Strike Bombers at whatever rate makes the most sense, service acquisition chief William LaPlante said in an interview with Air Force Magazine. Acknowledging that USAF will have a lot on its plate in the 2020s—the LRS-B, the F-35, an F-22 successor, the T-X trainer, KC-46 tanker, and other programs—LaPlante said the bomber doesn’t have to be crammed into a certain timeframe to preserve the overall funding scheme. The aircraft is “foundational” to the Air Force mission for the next 40 years, he said, and the service will trade other programs to keep it, if necessary. The rate of production, he said, will have to be fast enough to obtain learning curve efficiencies, but not so fast that the program suffers from “concurrency issues” like the F-35 experienced. As for the buy range of 80-100 airplanes, LaPlante said the figures recognize “we have never bought anything” in the numbers planned and a range is more “credible” than a specific number. However, because the $550 million average production unit cost is a key program requirement, the 80-100 was set “because you have to have … something to shoot for” to derive a unit cost estimate.

—John A. Tirpak
6/2/2014

The 80 Percent Solution

The first version of the Long-Range Strike Bomber is “very deliberately” not the final version, Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante said in an interview. LaPlante said the first version could be described as the “80 percent solution” to USAF’s ultimate requirement. In previous programs, he explained, the acquisition community would get nervous that “there would be no second version” of a given program because of cost or funding uncertainty, and tended to load up the initial model with more capabilities than were really needed at the start. That made them more complex, added changes and requirements, and “that’s how you get 15-year development” timelines, LaPlante said. With the LRS-B, the “Block” approach—starting with a well-defined capability that is less than the ultimate requirement and then improving it in stages—is being pursued because there’s “historical evidence” that it works better, he asserted. The F-16, he noted, looks largely the same today as it did when first introduced in the 1970s, but “if you open it up … on the inside” the aircraft is virtually unrecognizable from early models, due to improvements and increased capabilities.
—John A. Tirpak
6/2/2014


Feel Free to Do Better

Contractors proposing concepts for the Air Force’s Long-Range Strike Bomber can offer better than the Air Force’s minimum requirements and get paid for them if the price is right, service acquisition head William LaPlante told Air Force Magazine. Although USAF has shown laudable “discipline” on not changing the LRS-B requirements, which he said have remained fixed since 2010 and can only be altered by the Chief of Staff, the service is trying to structure the request for proposals such that contractors can offer “more than the lowest-acceptable technology” solution. However, there are relatively strict limits on weight and volume in the airplane, and any capability over and above the threshold “has to earn its way on” to the aircraft. The strategy is in keeping with the Pentagon’s “Better Buying Power” guidelines, which allow rewarding contractors who offer substantially more capability for only marginally higher cost.
—John A. Tirpak
6/2/2014

SOURCE: www.airforcemag.com...

Yeah but it lost the competition. So maybe it wasn't as stealthy? It would be certainly more manuerable than the other ones in the comp. Only thing I can gather is less stealthy.


Well the quote button didn't work. That was for you zaph

a reply to: boomer135

Perhaps they found a way to make it stealthy even with the canards or they were trying to make it stealthy.

Had to change my account since I forgot my password, and btw you should check your email

a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Jeez how many names you gonna go through? Lol

a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Oh and that's a slightly different plane. Also its cg

Edit: actually that's an f-22 with canards drawn on it in cg. Lol

a reply to: boomer135

Haha I liked my original one but then there was that 'unpleasantness' lol

Check again sorry lol

a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Still not even close. Lol. That's an ugly ass plane and by the looks of the non stealthy engines I'm gonna go on a limb and say China?

a reply to: boomer135

Or they decided to take the technology in a different direction. It may have lost on cost, or maintenance requirements, or some other feature about it besides stealthiness. Maybe we'll see parts of it in another design.