Long Range Strike Bomber News: Multiple Sources Reporting Northrop Grumman has won the Contract

a reply to: BigTrain

And you've said for months it's not crap of it's not hypersonic, which means a lot more than mach 4.

As for the KC-46 why don't you take all your amazing Aerospace engineering expertise and build something better. There's a lot more than just adding fuel tanks.

a reply to: BigTrain

So ONE stealth out of as many combat missions or more than the B-1 has flown, in threat environments that the B-1 didn't go into proves stealth sucks. Yep you're onto something there.

The B-1 is a POS that couldn't even fly in combat until 2001 because of all its problems. They can barely get them from point A to point B at times.

So a rocket that flies in the atmosphere for a couple of minutes and going to the moon .proves sustained in atmosphere hypersonic flight is not only possible but easy. Yep, that's logic for you.

You keep proving again and again you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

a reply to: gfad

It's enormously expensive and above mach 3 extremely difficult. Once you reach a certain speed the airframe starts to lose skin from the heat.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Excuses...they did it in 1950's, its 2015.

The did it using pencil and paper, we now have supercomputers.

They did it with balsa wood models, now we have mach 5 wind tunnels.

So who is showing they dont know what theyre talking about?

Seems todays generation couldnt build a model car, let alone a re-fueling tanker.

NG had the tanker contract because their design was done, was complete was better, Boeing, who is basically government ran, protested and won, and now they cant even build the tanker....come on Zaph.

B-1 never been shot down, f-117 blown to bits using basically a missile that was connected to an atari game machine controller.

you just cant admit it....stealth is all talk no action. You say B-1 wasnt ready til 2001? F-22 hasnt been ready for 30 YEARS!

But I will add, F-22 is mighty amazing.

a reply to: SonOfThor

They gave away the platform by the tone in their responses.

a reply to: BigTrain

NG didn't have crap, except a contract to put booms on. EADS had the contract, and their tanker has had as many developmental problems as the KC-46, if not more. Their tanker wasn't ready. It was just certified to use the boom for refueling two months ago, and still have a few issues being worked out.

Wow, I love your logic. One F-117 gets shot down, and despite them flying thousands of combat missions, through some of the most defended airspace in the world with no problems, stealth is a joke that sucks. Jesus, that's amazing.

Let's look a little deeper at that amazing record of the B-1 (which has never flown into combat supersonic, or at low altitude, both of which it was supposed to do).

Desert Storm, B-1s were grounded and restricted from any combat roles because of engine problems. Operation Iraqi Freedom, day two over Baghdad, against defenses that were already still degraded from previous years, and had been hit the night before. In 2001, while heading to Afghanistan, a B-1 out of Diego Garcia crashed into the Indian Ocean after suffering mechanical problems.

There have been multiple groundings of the fleet, because of maintenance issues. Four B-1s made an emergency landing at Hickam, with engine and/or fan blade changes because on departure from Singapore, they had to choose between deicing the engine intakes, or having their navigation equipment running. During the flight ice buildup on the intakes broke loose and went through the engines damaging them.

A B-1 crew chief once told me that there is no such thing as a B-1 that is not broken in some way, and they have to pick and choose which systems work, and can't get anywhere near the top speed listed.

Now look at the F-117 combat record. They flew 1,300 missions over Iraq in Desert Storm, hitting 1,600 targets, with an 80% hit rate. They were the only aircraft that were cleared to fly over downtown Baghdad because of the defenses. Over Yugoslavia, the F-117 and B-2 both flew hundreds of missions, through multiple layers of defenses, and lost one aircraft, mostly because the planners and commanders were stupid, and the battery commander was very smart. After 2001, the F-117 again flew thousands of missions over Iraq and Afghanistan, against some pretty stiff defenses, once again for no losses. So with probably at least 3,000 combat missions, against defenses that other aircraft wouldn't go near they lost one aircraft. Tell me again how stealth sucks, because B-1s that went against largely degraded defenses, and didn't even fly combat in two of the biggest operations hasn't been shot down, while flying a profile that any other bomber in the inventory would fly.

The F-22 not being ready for combat is irrelevant, since it hasn't had any combat situations that fit its mission. It's supposed to be an air superiority fighter. Which theater has had fighters flying that it would have had to be used for again?

So again, you are an expert aerospace engineer, and know what you're talking about? Do you even begin to understand the problems they had developing the SR-71? Or the problems that aircraft had until the day it retired?

a reply to: BigTrain

Nobody has given away crap except for a few concept drawings.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BigTrain
So again, you are an expert aerospace engineer, and know what you're talking about? Do you even begin to understand the problems they had developing the SR-71? Or the problems that aircraft had until the day it retired?

Expanding on this for a sec... Almost all of the cutting-edge technologies and exotic manufacturing methods, that allowed the Blackbird to even exist, were solely invented/developed for the Blackbird. Period.

Same goes with the space shuttle.

Such advanced technological breakthrough's such as those, where you're literally making leaps and bounds in tech, rely heavily on breakthrough inventions upon breakthrough inventions... And for all of those to all work harmoniously, without a hitch, is a marvel in itself.

High-supersonic is really a devil.

High-supersonic is really a devil.

If it was easy everyone would be doing it...

a reply to: Blackfinger
Yes surely but after 3 decade of aeronautic research nothing new in the performance its a bad sign for the futur , if miliary and civilian aircraft stay for ever in the subsonic .

a reply to: darksidius


That you know of..

You know they keep secrets.

And in any case. As it's been gone over.

Supersonic is stupidly expensive. And everyone complains about the sonic booms.

Until that quiet boom tech goes white. we'll be stuck with subsonic.

a reply to: grey580
When I was Young they were a lot of sonic boom made by fighter where I live and at this time nobody complain about it, sometime I hate this new period

B1 did alot of work during Kosovo, just saying. I don't really care about the pissing match but It has had it's moments not that that makes it great it's still not the best in my eyes. Up at GF they were moved around at night on the ground alot (they didn't fly but it sure looked like it lol).

a reply to: usafage

It's had its moments, but what's so funny is that it's being touted as a prime example of how speed works, and hasn't once flown a high speed mission profile since it's actually been able to finally enter combat. Every time it's been used in combat, it's flown a normal high altitude, cruising profile, just like any other bomber.

a reply to: Zaphod58

We learned SOMETHINGS from the X15 program(Even thought I doubt they could arm it)
Also we ALL know they only put out WHAT IS NEEDED for the time.
SHAME thay won't do that with the M16.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

The X-15 was also a rocket plane. Vastly different to fly a rocket plane at Mach 6, and to fly a regular air breathing engine and airframe at Mach 6.

a reply to: Zaphod58

We figutred out material stuff and valuable info the Europeans learned after we pioneered the effort.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Which, again, wouldn't translate well to an air breathing platform. The X-15 flew higher than any air breathing platform could, so there was less friction and heat buildup in the airframe than you would see in a platform that flies even at 70-80,000 feet. The X-15 was reaching altitudes over 200,000 feet during its flight.

Yes, there was some learning from the X-15, as there were from any of the X planes, but it was more in controls that worked under various situations, even reaction engines for control purposes.

One thing I am wondering about: is it not just the aircraft, but the expertise in production that is considered for the winner? Clearly a dud won't be picked, but if two planes are close in capability, will there be a lot of consideration given to a bidder who has demonstrated expertise in building quality planes efficiently, who doesn't have to rework everything after the AF QA guys given then a 5 inch thick to-be-fixed list? In the end, if a company can make quality planes and make them profitably, then that is going to be quite an edge I would hope...