LRS-B Will be Much more that Just a Bomber

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: grey580

Very very small. Better than the B-2.

When it's so small, any maintenance glitch & misalignment would result in a huge increase. Could be risky if they make an aggressive mission plan based on the nominal RCS and find the in-practice RCS was so much worse because of a dent or bird poop or a little screw head not quite all tightened down.

a reply to: mbkennel

That's why they fly in pairs and make a pass by either an AWACS or ground based radar system before heading in.

originally posted by: darksidius
Surely for the RCS but you take an enormous risk to base the survivability only on the stealth, we speak for a plane staying at least for 4 decade, its not impossible China and Russia build a system of detection different than the radar and stealth can become obsolete , if so your complete stealth fleet can reach the ground because if ennemy can see you at this time the capacity of speed or maneuver can make the difference between the life and the dead.

Quoth Sparta: "If"

| its not impossible China and Russia build a system of detection different than the radar

Sure, but there are laws of physics which are still not alterable unfortunately.

a) There's a reason radar went from long wavelength to short wavelength as soon as they had electronics which could handle it.

Yes, you can more easily find "something" built for stealth with long-wavelength radar. To do that well, you need a very large antenna. Like dozens of meters wide. Which is likely on a not very mobile ground station, or a very large aircraft. In particular, not something that would fit into the nosecone of a fighter or missile. And it would need to transmit high power frequently. So it's damn vulnerable to an anti-radiation or cruise missile. And when you see something, you have much lower resolution. Opponent would know "something" is out there, but that might be information that they can get by watching CNN.

What else? Oh yeah, when you are at long wavelengths then the aircraft is pretty much a point to the radar system, it's very hard to get enough shape and timeseries information to do sophisticated signal processing for target classification. So the opponent won't know if it's a B-3 coming, or a cheap drone, or a civvy craft, or one of their own.

And what else? Oh yeah, when the aircraft is a point and the frequency of radar is low, then it's much easier to do good onboard ECM and successfully modify the return signal to make it look like something else.

So yes, conventional stealth is still useful because high-frequency radar (target of stealth) is ordinarily more capable than low-frequency radar.

b) There's still the infrared properties of the atmosphere.

Like absorption. Infrared will be (is?) the next area of stealth. Wonder if skin plasma helps here.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mbkennel

That's why they fly in pairs and make a pass by either an AWACS or ground based radar system before heading in.

The AWACS operators must have TS clearance then.

a reply to: mbkennel

It's not like it gives the RCS on the screen, but they already do.

Just another indicator of the winner and that the time is close

www.janes.com...

Northrop Grumman announced on 16 September that its board had authorised a share buy-back programme valued at USD4 billion.

The group said in a statement to investors that the repurchases will take place "from time to time, subject to market conditions and management's discretion, in the open market or in privately negotiatied transactions".

Share repurchase efforts were a common theme of western defence markets in the years following the commencement of the global financial crisis and the consequential downturn in funding

a reply to: hawks

Northrop just got a couple decent contracts, although one is under protest. They're also pushing hard to move faster on the JSTARS replacement.

a reply to: mbkennel
I understand your opinion about the stealth , ok for that, but another thing need speed it's the fight with the mobile launcher, a lot of time to go on the theater and the launcher go away, this type of mission need speed. How you fight the very mobile target of a country like Russia or China ? A lot of time USAF said it need speed to destroy this type of vehicle with a subsonic plane it need at least one hour and a half to start penetrat of more of 600 miles in a hostile territory , it's a lot of time for a target to escape.

a reply to: Zaphod58

However, I'm sure their stock will still take a hit when the winner of the lrsb is announced (still assuming they lost). Yes, if I had to put money on JSTARS I would lean towards NG getting it.

originally posted by: BigTrain
a reply to: yuppa

I dont think its a stretch at all to think skunk works or phantom works or another even more secretive government collaboration has cracked the anti-gravity dream.

If you can manipulate the electromagnetic force, you can do anything.

Well they dont use Anti gravity so much as they reduce the crafts mass to lighter than air. Helium dont need no anti gravity does it? lol. same principle. And that it used directed plasma to modify the air in front and around it.

a reply to: hawks

I was just reading about the radar they developed for their aircraft. Good god that's an amazing radar. It'll advance JSTARS decades.

a reply to: darksidius

No, you need persistent surveillance for this type of target. If you have that, which is easier and cheaper to accomplish that hypersonic vehicles, you don't need speed to hit those target. You always know where they are and are able to send stealth assets that have a larger payload to deal with multiple mobile targets.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Link? I though Raytheon was supplying the radar to all entrants?

a reply to: Northernhollow

No, they've offered it, but NG developed their own.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Heh, "can cause 'non-kinetic effects'."

a reply to: Northernhollow

I love military euphemisms.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Every airshow ive been too, be it Nellis, Edwards, Miramar, whatever, whenever you see the B-2 fly by, people look and go, man thats pretty, ooooh nice shape.

Then the B-1 rips their heads off and men drool all over themselves, high five, get teary-eyed and crack open 4 more beers and celebrate at what their eyes and ears just experienced....

Nobody even remembers the B-2 after B-1 takes the stage....not even close.

a reply to: BigTrain

Because they like the noise. To the average person, noise equals power. Over 90% of people at those airshows couldn't even identify a B-1 without someone telling them what it is.

So now we should spend billions on high speed bombers because people think they're cool? I'd rather spend less on bombers that WORK thanks. The B-1 may be cool, but, again, it's a nightmare to maintain, and is a giant compromise that barely meets the requirements for the design.

So, where do you think they'll actually be revealing the LRS-B('s) ?

I've heard three different places now... St. Louis, Palmdale, Edwards

a reply to: weavty1

Ashton Carter did tour Boeing's "black diamond" facility in St. Louis last week. Both Boeing and the SECDEF are keeping mum on the purpose of the visit.
My money though would be on Edwards or Palm.