LRS-B (Time to Vent)

originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol people think oh hey we've got a hypersonic plane, let's strap some bombs underneath it, it's really easy.. Lol

....but that's exactly what we did.

a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Lol people think oh hey we've got a hypersonic plane, let's strap some bombs underneath it, it's really easy.. Lol

In Russia they went for the opposite option apparently.

"Oh hey we've got an awfully-slow cargo plane, let's strap some bombs underneath it, it's really easy...Lol":

Russia exercises with Il-76 'bombers'

a reply to: aholic

No they purpose built it for that.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Would you see an aerospace capable system as a viable weapon?

It is. It's called an ICBM.

a reply to: mbkennel
ICBM mean end of the world, its a fear weapon impossible to use.

a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Amongst other things...the can do attitude of our engineers is unfathomable.

a reply to: aholic

They can do a lot but in the end physics still gets in the way.

a reply to: mbkennel

A manned areospacecraft...DUH.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And other times it has a way of helping out....

a reply to: boomer135

Of course you hit the nail on the head with why it is what it is. There's a lot of stuff in our bomber fleet that needs replacing sooner rather than later.

The B-1 is too expensive to be a bomb truck, too slow to be fast enough to justify its cost, and too compromised in the name of speed to be stealthy. It was a great aircraft in the 70's and 80's, but it's more or less obsolete today.

The B-2 is a great aircraft, but it's an expensive white elephant that's a PITA to maintain and base, and the 2.2B per bird price tag mixed with the expensive, temperamental maintenance requirements of its early stealth tech (not to mention that we only have 20 of the things instead of the 100 we were supposed to get) mean that it's essentially a hanger queen in search of missions worth the costs/risks of its expensive capabilities.

The B-52 on the other hand, like the KC-135, will probably be in service long after most of us are dead.

All the LRS-B is is a program to replace the B-1 and B-2 with a stealthy aircraft that offers 99% of the B2's capabilities with the low cost and production volume to allow it to become an actual workhorse that will form the backbone of bomber ops for the next 20-30 years instead of being a hideously expensive toy that spends most of its time racking up maintenance hours and wowing kids at airshows like the B1/B2 do. It's not sexy, but with any luck it'll actually be able to get the job done.

So this "upgraded" B2 is the best we can do? I just cant fathom this is even worth getting excited about? I cant get excited over another slow moving wing with "reduced RCS". Speed is still king no matter how much you want to believe RCS matters.....get behind a slow wing and youll shoot it down. How you going to catch a mach 6? Youre not.

So let me get this straight.....XB 70 was mach 3+ 50 yrs ago and we cant even achieve that today at a greatly reduced price tag from the B2 but with F35 RCS and make it carry 30,000 pounds of gear? Nonsense....youve got the tech right now to do it and its not even black tech.

a reply to: aholic


originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol people think oh hey we've got a hypersonic plane, let's strap some bombs underneath it, it's really easy.. Lol


....but that's exactly what we did.


a reply to: aholic

No they purpose built it for that.

a reply to: BigTrain

The XB-70 was fast for sure, but it guzzled gas, would have been a basing nightmare, and with those trick 2D-variable inlets, compression-lifting engine nacelle, drooping wingtips and feather ailerons, it had the RCS of Cowboys Stadium. At "only" mach 3+ it would have been a sitting duck for the same later Soviet/Russian SAMs that were the reason why the A-12/SR-71 never overflew the motherland.

Never, never underestimate the value of going slow and low (observable, that is). What people always forget is that in the crack-smoking Reagan years there WAS a suitably-insane proposal to replace the SR-71, with the surreal budget to match.

Was it some sort of hypersonic superplane? No. It was a giant, unmanned, flying wing with an RCS as well as EM/IR observability that would have made the B-2 look like Have Blue. And it had a flight envelope that most closely resembled that of the U-2. The reason for that was because the most valuable intel that you could pick up on an enemy was the stuff that you could pick up by loitering over them for hours, with them never realizing that you're there. There's a reason why most of our drones today follow that exact same philosophy.

Another issue with the whole "going fast" mentality for a strike aircraft is that missiles, both of the cruise and ICBM-variety, do that job better than most strike aircraft. Most...

It certainly doesn't have the "12 year-old's bedroom poster" appeal that the fast stuff does, but slow and undetected is a hell of a lot more useful.

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: BigTrain

The XB-70 was fast for sure, but it guzzled gas, would have been a basing nightmare, and with those trick 2D-variable inlets, compression-lifting engine nacelle, drooping wingtips and feather ailerons, it had the RCS of Cowboys Stadium. At "only" mach 3+ it would have been a sitting duck for the same later Soviet/Russian SAMs that were the reason why the A-12/SR-71 never overflew the motherland.

Never, never underestimate the value of going slow and low (observable, that is). What people always forget is that in the crack-smoking Reagan years there WAS a suitably-insane proposal to replace the SR-71, with the surreal budget to match.

Was it some sort of hypersonic superplane? No. It was a giant, unmanned, flying wing with an RCS as well as EM/IR observability that would have made the B-2 look like Have Blue. And it had a flight envelope that most closely resembled that of the U-2. The reason for that was because the most valuable intel that you could pick up on an enemy was the stuff that you could pick up by loitering over them for hours, with them never realizing that you're there. There's a reason why most of our drones today follow that exact same philosophy.

Another issue with the whole "going fast" mentality for a strike aircraft is that missiles, both of the cruise and ICBM-variety, do that job better than most strike aircraft. Most...

It certainly doesn't have the "12 year-old's bedroom poster" appeal that the fast stuff does, but slow and undetected is a hell of a lot more useful.

I guess my fascination with speed and power is just not evenly shared.

Im more upset that the commercial airliner i fly in still goes 450 mph maybe 500 on a good day.....that guys....is the real joke

a reply to: BigTrain

Because of the fact that supersonic flight over populated areas is extremely problematical.

a reply to: Zaphod58

is it though?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Unfortunately, it seems that the the best hope for supersonic civilian air transport these days lies in the private jet world. Or look at it this way, there's a reason why highway speeds haven't improved since the days of the XB-70 either.

Drag increases exponentially with speed, which means that as you go faster, you use much, much more fuel. That part of thermodynamics will never change. Now you can offset that fuel cost by making stuff lighter/smaller, but you end up spending more on something with a lot less creature comforts.

Just compare the Concorde to the 747 (or compare a McLaren to a Camry). The Concorde cost twice what the 747 did but carried 1/4 the people at 10x the cost due to its per-passenger fuel usage. And while the 747 originally flew with a bar and a piano, the Concorde's interior made a CRJ seem luxurious. The same goes when comparing the fuel economy and creature-comforts of a well-specced Camry to its Italian brethren.

Those same compromises don't magically go away when you jump to defense projects, and in an age of tightening defense budgets, you're going to be seeing a lot more Dreamliners than Concordes.

a reply to: Barnalby

"Thats just like ...your opinion man." - The Dude.

So we can't make something that goes faster than mach 3. We never ever tried to figure out ways to mitigate drag or friction, or heat. So we can't figure out a way to make something relatively fuel efficient while doing all the above.

Ok if you say so. Thanks for insulting the hard work of a crap load of americans. (and some allies too I'm sure)

I for one will continue to choose to believe that we got cool shizzle.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

The eight minute barrier is where things get interesting.

But what he was saying is we won't see Concorde size high speed aircraft for commercial use.

a reply to: Zaphod58

yeah but isn't that 8 minute barrier like at mach 9 or something. I could see something cruising comfortably at say mach 6ish that could dash up to higher speeds for just a few seconds to escape danger or maybe just to show off. Well thats what I would do if I were piloting her.

I bet if we wanted to create something close to concorde size like say a little over 170 feet or so. our military contractors could do it. just saying. But thats just crazy bass' opinion again.