Weird California sighting

a reply to: Zaphod58

Didn't the F111 have a miserable record when first deployed to Southeast Asia?

a reply to: IamSirDrinksalot

As Zaphod said, it was fast down low, plus it had a huge payload and a long range.

It really was the perfect multi role jet for Australia, fighter/bomber and tactical strike capable.

As much as I love the Hornet, it doesn't come close to the F-111, neither does the F35..

If there is a replacement out there, I hope, firstly, it will become available to the US's allies, (highly unlikely I know!) and secondly the Australian government sees fit to get some! (See above, highly unlikely!).

a reply to: buddah6

And it was a pig maintenance wise for years. But when it was on, nothing could come close to it.

a reply to: buddah6

Initially they did, yes, but once the bugs were smoothed out it was a formidable deterrent, I say deterrent because it never got to see real wartime action for the RAAF.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

I just remember it's first deployment with the loss of several aircraft for unknown reasons. I know at operating in North Vietnam is anything but safe. I also remember two being lost in Operation Colorado Junction against Libya. This doesn't mean a bad design just a tough mission that was being done under adverse conditions.

I have heard that the F105 was an excellent NOE aircraft as well. It seems like that this tactic was one of the few tactics that worked reasonably well in the Vietnam Battle Space.

a reply to: buddah6

Only one was lost over Libya in 86. We lost three between Pease and Plattsburgh to uncommanded rolls, with the loss of one crew. It had times when it was a pain in the ass, but it gradually outgrew that, and with the RAAF really came into its own and was a damn good airplane.

There is a lot of comment on the web about a 2 engine configuration for futur LRS-B, its difficult to have 3/4 size of a B-2 with only 2 engine no ?

a reply to: darksidius

Depends on the engines, really.

Maybe we're looking at something similar to what the SR-72 is supposed to have..

a reply to: darksidius

"Future LRS-B". There is going to be more than one bomber coming out, and they're going to be in different configurations for their missions.

But, it's quite easy to have a two engine long range bomber now. The B-2 uses F118 engines, minus the afterburner. Each engine produces 17,300lbs of thrust (approximately), for a total of 69,200 lbs of thrust (approximately). Let's say they use the F136 engine, minus afterburner, that's 50,000 lbs of thrust for two of them.

That means that with the new lighter composites used in the structure, and the lighter overall weight of the aircraft, it's going to have at WORST a similar thrust to weight ratio as the B-2, with two engines.

Do you say we will see the appearence of two different Platform in the same designation ? Is it possible to fund 2 different craft ? surely this futur LRS will be more faster than a B-2 it will be logical.

a reply to: darksidius

LRS-B isn't a designation, it's a program. B-2 is a designation, LRS-B is just a type of aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And cruise at Mach 2.5?

a reply to: BlackDog10

It can do a lot of interesting things if it uses the new engine technology I've heard about.

a reply to: BlackDog10
Cruising at mach 2.5 it will be a big leap in Long range strike , a stealthy supersonic Platform must cause serious problems to the bad guys, and it will be surely very difficult to defeat, I hope see it a day. wordlesstech.com... It remember this Northrop picture beautiful concept

a reply to: Zaphod58

Wouldn't it be awesome if the new B3 could go supersonic with a quite boom. I'm not sure though if it's a flying wing it would be able to do that. But you never know you can make something triangular in shape go really fast. Theres got to be a way somehow.

I'm thinking the new B3 can go a little faster maybe then the B2 but I'm thinking it's real engine advancement will be on how it burns the fuel to maximize range. I'm figuring this new bomber can go a lot further without refueling then any before. Oh yeah and there is the whole nearly invisible to all wavelengths stealth thing. And the no ailerons. And maybe some really really neat EW tech too perhaps. I'm hoping it comes complete with accessories like a cruise missile sized stealth drone that will be slaved to the B3 (or not) and act like its dog. Filling in the roll of a "Companion", a "guard dog," and maybe drop a bomb or two on very high risk targets tasked to the mother bomber so she doesn't have to risk getting shot down.

Then I'm figuring a smaller sr-72 type craft for express delivery of whatever you want. To take pictures or Sigint. T drop bombs, hell maybe even to deploy little nano satellites or anti satellite weapons. Just a craft that can be on call to blow stuff up on a moments notice anywhere in the world with a very low probability of intercept due to its speed and altitude and it probably being ch quieter then people expect. It can double as a super high speed interceptor like how lockheed originally wanted the Sr-71. Have a plane like the RQ-180 really, really high up with a huge field of view. See any shennanigans coming from a long distance away, and send up this thing to speed out and intercept it. We could also give ultimatums. "You have two hours to destroy this munitions facility president of wackministan or we'll do it for you" This thing could get anywhere in the world before they could move any of the stuff to a new location and take it out.

Then there is the F111 replacement which I think will replace a lot of aircraft from the F117 t the f111 maybe even the b1. But it's going to be a real nightmare to the opposition.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

The quiet boom testbed is flying over Wyoming. I've seen it a few times, and it's pretty impressive to see. Goes by other planes like they were standing still, without a sound at ground level.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hell maybe they've done a demonstration/flyby or two for some of the bigwigs and execs recently at their los angeles corporate offices. You know to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new craft. Wouldn't be unthinkable.

"hey look at us! we're flying low, supersonically, over one of the largest cities in the world at a pretty active hour in some of the most densest airspace with military assets and bases and radar all around and nobody noticed a thing! We did it not once but TWICE!! So uhhh do we get the new contract senators?"

If I had seen something like that going down a month or so ago It wouldn't surprise me. Although what I saw I really think was no bomber, or quiet boom concept, something waaaay more advanced. It was just doing stuff too unreal with it's speed, silence, and weird ass blue lights. Oh yeah and the weird bluish fog thing and the trailing star that joined it. But still I wouldn't be surprised to learn that I had seen something less exciting and it was one of these new soon to go greyish/white craft.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Oh I'm sure at this point it is just a matter of refinement, and testing various configurations.

As for what you saw, it won't come out for a long time, if ever.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Oh I'm sure at this point it is just a matter of refinement, and testing various configurations.

As for what you saw, it won't come out for a long time, if ever.

So... what is its purpose?

BASSPLAYER's sighting seems to be mentioned quite a bit in hushed tones. Does it seem to have anything to do with the one mentioned in this thread?

a reply to: keeley

No. What is mentioned in this tread is 1. ground breaking for the military. 2. very bad ass. 3. One of several possible things that the US has coming operational if not already that will be a game changer. 4. will smack the stupid arrogant grin off of other nations that really thought they were figuring out how to defeat the US air power. And 5. still not what I saw. Which is a check mate sort of thing. I can re-live each time I saw it. and it wasn't long each time, in slow motion in my head and I remember the detail. The more I think of it the more confident I am that we are MUCH, MUCH more advanced than anyone in the world in military tech.

But like I said. Seeing is believing. And I'm now a recent convert. Check my latest posts, since recently the tone has changed, from not much interest at all to holy crap it does exist! I believe. I've seen one thing we can do, and it was really cool. Astounding actually, and that's not hamming it up. Even half of what I saw capability wise being deployed will crush the opposition. America has been hard at work developing new military tech. Even if it's really secret. It's there . It exists. Doom on you if you are the enemy. That's not a joke. Seriously, it will be doom on you, don't try it. Just a friendly warning. We got your number and in a number of different platforms.