U.S. Air Force Said Poised to Award Bomber Contract Tuesday

a reply to: AtomicMod

War Is Boring started out a pretty good read, then quickly turned into a political hack piece. If it's F-35 it sucks. Now if it's Boeing/Lockheed with the bomber, they can't build crap.

a reply to: Zaphod58

100% agreed, warisboring used to be one of my favorite defense blogs, now I cringe whenever I check because the bad research/agenda pushing has gotten so extreme

hey zaph is "warisboring" the guys with the article "does the us have a spy plane flying over the pacific?"

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Yes. He even screwed that up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

oh good! I was going to call the guy less than bright (worse things actually) but I didn't want to bad mouth the wrong person.

amazing zaph that more of these "experts" don't try reading the aviation forum here. probably would learn something. when i read that article i was like tell us somethibg we dont know and that hes about two years late with his "revelation"

further proof that the aviation forum is a hidden gem on the internet.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Several people that I talk to off ATS as well and I have been laughing because both Flight and Aviation Week have routinely been two days to almost a week behind ATS with a number of stories.

a reply to: Zaphod58

this one was way beyond two days behind.

you're being too kind to the editors over there.

its too bad the ats aviation forum hasnt started doing it's own journal to compete with aviation week and flight. we could blow them off the map with material. sadly it would probably last only a month before some folks with a lot of pull got pissed and redacted every article and blog. oh well.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I don't really consider a blog as a major news source though like Flight and AvWeek. Both of those are internationally recognized as major aviation news sources.

a reply to: Zaphod58

However, I think AvWeek has been having issues handling stealth related projects, IMO. It appears, though may not be the case, they have become too Sweetman-centric.

a reply to: anzha

Oh dear god yes. Sweetman is apparently never wrong and knows all.

a reply to: Zaphod58

He's been off so much lately I have to wonder what he did for them that makes AvWeek worship him so.

a reply to: anzha

I've noticed that myself. I guess when you build his rep you can get away with a lot.

Did you see his article patting himself in the back the other day?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I did. I was horrified.

His first books appear to be from circa 82. I'd guess we have another decade of Sweetman-isms then.

And he has a serious obsession with Aurora. The one source I had on the subject stated they built something (unmanned) and in the early 90s it made a hole in the desert, so they decided to cancel it. This was the Clinton years, after all.

Based on what I've seen with the struggle with scramjets, I've seen nothing since that would convince me that source was wrong.

Hypersonics is hard.

OTOH, there could be other fast things out there slower than Mach 5 (hypersonic regime).

a reply to: anzha

There are several out there that he hasn't even picked up a hint on.

I saw the headline, read the short description and closed the window without reading the article. I would have thrown up in my mouth.

a reply to: anzha

I'm convinced most of the Aurora hyperbole was a disinformation campaign to keep people from discovering AARS/Quartz.

Keeping people's eyes and ears peeled for the a mach 6 triangular fastmover that doesn't exist and the sonic booms that it isnt making is a great way of keeping them from realizing that your planned top-tier strategic asset is a slow-moving, loitering, and essentially invisible flying wing.

a reply to: Barnalby

Aurora was strictly due to people wanting badly to believe that there was something spectacular out there. They saw Aurora on a budgetary line item, added 1+1 and came up with 6.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Turning back to the LRS-B. The US Air Force is investigating a data breach about the LRS-B. Apparently, the Forbes article's comment about doubling the price of the two teams' entries was true.

a reply to: anzha

Yeah, I was trying to find out if we were about to see another witch hunt. The DIA went nuts a few months ago and drove everyone to ground.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So, was the USAF just assuming congress would cut everything and cause the price to go up or hiding something? Secrets within secrets? Or those off bird (see what I did there?!) assets the bomber needs?

a reply to: anzha
The politics must think that the USAF and the world need a new bomber , and now we assist of a batlle of price since Northrop award the contract, hey guy's open your eyes and stop thinking price and looking yourself we are at two finger to fall in a new world war so HURRY UP with the new bomber. Europe is unable to face a big regional conflict so every body ( in the free world) need a new USAF bomber capacity on the theater. Look at the news Russian willl deploy S-400 in Syria. Surely new stealth bomber capacity in a near futur will be very need. Don't they think it may be time to put the black toys in the white to stop the dangerous game ?