Read the forum code of contact
By: - 15th July 2015 at 16:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There have been some rumors of this, though there had been little in the way of official statements.
Things to consider:
What little info is out there suggests a flying wing shape. That would make the LRS-B the first tailless supersonic aircraft.
Either the engines have TVC or NASA's research in tailless supersonic aircraft offers a solution to the instability of tailless aircraft passing through the high trans sonic to supersonic.
....or the rumors are just that, rumors and the LRS-B is subsonic. Doubt we'll know for 2-3 years.
By: - 15th July 2015 at 16:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the concept of it being a warmed over B2 style flying wing design is rubbish.
If you want my opinion Coach, the eventual design is much more likely to be along the lines of the sort of thing that was doing the rounds in 2006 and then "didn't fit the profile".
By: - 15th July 2015 at 16:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes, i'm abandoning the subsonic variant as well
By: - 15th July 2015 at 16:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the concept of it being a warmed over B2 style flying wing design is rubbish.If you want my opinion Coach, the eventual design is much more likely to be along the lines of the sort of thing that was doing the rounds in 2006 and then didn't fit the profile.
Designs are complete and submitted, the selection was supposed to have occurred, but has been pushed back.
BTW, Northrup's entry is either a flying wing or a great piece of disinformation, as they've shown the 'alledged' basic shape already.
By: - 15th July 2015 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Something like this for NG
By: - 15th July 2015 at 16:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes to disinformation and yes Austin, that is the type of thing i was thinking of. That or this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]239196[/ATTACH]
I can't believe that after all this time the aircraft is effectively the B3 from Broken Arrow- which is what they would have us believe....
By: - 15th July 2015 at 17:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Anything ever written, concept revealed or programs researched relating to the LRS is documented here ;)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,191.0.html
BTW, Northrup's entry is either a flying wing or a great piece of disinformation, as they've shown the 'alledged' basic shape already.
You mean the Super Bowl commercial?
They'll reveal the LRS at the Nats park in August ;)
By: - 15th July 2015 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ha. No mission creep here then.
Here goes another bloated, late to the party, way over budget defense program.
And does anyone wonder why the world at large considers the US DoD to be a bunch of stupid, inept, spoilt brats when it comes to defence procurement? They essentially hold the country's finances hostage with every program and refuse to learn from their repeated mistakes.
By: - 15th July 2015 at 17:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The LRS-B requirement in terms of capability has remained unchanged throughout the entire process to avoid requirement creep. Rumors about the LRSB being supersonic have occasionally popped up and the USAF and other DOD organizations have awarded study contracts to both team members over the years as far as basic research. There is nothing out there with any sort of credibility that would suggest that the supersonic requirement was added during the design process, or that the supersonic requirement exists even now. The USAF has gone on record to claim that the authority to change requirement rests with the CSAF and he hasn't tinkered around with the requirements they planned on in 2010.
By: - 15th July 2015 at 17:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Anything ever written, concept revealed or programs researched relating to the LRS is documented here ;)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,191.0.html
You mean the Super Bowl commercial?
They'll reveal the LRS at the Nats park in August ;)
Think it's a little more than just the Super Bowl ad that lends support to some sort of flying wing:
Requirements of air-sea battle concept, this thing is going to need range/persistence.
All-aspect stealth, simply easier with that shape.( if there is indeed an optionally manned requirement, US aerospace industry has extensive experience with flying wing UAV's)
Northrop's design history lends credence to keeping a flying wing, they've done it.
Not to mention the Texas mystery aircraft which may or may not have anything to do with the LRS-B, but the timeline fits.
By: - 15th July 2015 at 17:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am not talking about the mission but the comment -
BTW, Northrup's entry is either a flying wing or a great piece of disinformation, as they've shown the 'alledged' basic shape already.
I am assuming here that you meant that they have shown the basic shape, and in support of that you cite the commercial? That was definitely not a real design by any means. The program is closely scrutinized and classified. More light will be shed and possible design be shared later in the year. Don't expect them to spend hundred of millions on security (if not more) and still allow one OEM to share the design in a commercial.
I doubt it will be supersonic but based on what is publicly known the requirements have not been changed since they were changed beginning 2010 or so..It could be that they had the supersonic speed requirements all along but given the aggressive price target and the fact that it was a part of the requirement it looks out of reach..But we should have better idea later in the year.
By: - 15th July 2015 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/tough-choices-for-dod-on-long-range-…
The word "alledged". They've released concept images, nothing to do with super bowl ad. Whether that is the actual shape? Prob not, but what little hints they've dropped are mostly consistent. I would not bet money on any exact configuration as you've said project is classified.
By: - 15th July 2015 at 18:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A lot of the image material used is from the NGB material released by the vendors back then.
By: - 15th July 2015 at 23:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you guys realize that we don't even know if the B2 is slightly supersonic or not?
If you intend to fight your spectrum emissions, at what speed would you like to fly while flying high?
By: - 16th July 2015 at 03:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ha. No mission creep here then.Here goes another bloated, late to the party, way over budget defense program.
And does anyone wonder why the world at large considers the US DoD to be a bunch of stupid, inept, spoilt brats when it comes to defence procurement? They essentially hold the country's finances hostage with every program and refuse to learn from their repeated mistakes.
So you don't know the requirements.
You don't know what trade-offs were examined.
You don't the proposals.
...but of course you are already sure you know better. You realize this actually says a lot more about you than any bomber, right?
By: - 16th July 2015 at 12:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So you don't know the requirements.You don't know what trade-offs were examined.
You don't the proposals.
...but of course you are already sure you know better. You realize this actually says a lot more about you than any bomber, right?
Blah blah blah.
I do know there was much hot air about cost control, minimal risk, mission creep control and statement of subsonic only.
Of course, minimal risk and no creep doesn't tie in with trading off for supersonics... unless you are going to just build a new fleet of B-1b's.
By: - 16th July 2015 at 13:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supersonic, how much? It is not the same flying to let say 1,3 and over mach 2 instead.
For bombing ISIS mission supersonic is not useful at all, for a large scale war ...how much speed would be necessary against MiG31?
By: - 16th July 2015 at 14:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Blah blah blah.I do know there was much hot air about cost control, minimal risk, mission creep control and statement of subsonic only.
Of course, minimal risk and no creep doesn't tie in with trading off for supersonics... unless you are going to just build a new fleet of B-1b's.
* We do not know about the requirements. I assume here that you are referring to requirement creep, as mission creep would mean that it has newer missions being added to it. All we know is that it is a Long range, penetrating (survivable) bomber. How that survivability is achieved is anyone's guess.
* We know for a fact that the requirements have not really changed since they were first developed at the start of the program. The CSAF and the program leadership have been categorical in that unlike the B-2, they do not want to change the requirements and add a ton of cost because of this.
* We know for a fact, that the per unit cost is mentioned in the RFP, and the designs will be judged on that with some incentives worked in for exceeding certain performance metrics.
'Requirement creep' would imply that it was to be a subsonic bomber, and they added a supersonic mission to it. This is far from the truth. Heck, we do not even know if it will be supersonic (i doubt it)..and similarly, it could have had super cruise requirements all along for all we know. I doubt AIR cites any sources for the supersonic claim, but in my opinion the best way to build around a high super cruise is to build a larger FB-22..This would either force the LRS-B to a medium bomber category with a smaller range to the B-2, or make it an incredibly complex from a cost perspective which is unlikely given the fact that the per unit cost is a part of the RFP. Anyway, we should know soon enough.
By: - 16th July 2015 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I personally think they need to design for more practical purposes and drop the all everything approach they've used since the 80's. Fighting boogeyman isn't cost effective. Being integrated into the battlefield management is key, and they can always use stealth cruise missiles to punch through high threat defense networks.
By: - 16th July 2015 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the Texas sighting was a LRS-B demonstrator then it wont be supersonic, but a sonic cruiser is possible.
Posts: 224
By: Coach - 15th July 2015 at 15:52
Every source I consulted until now stated that the speed of LRS-B would be subsonic.
But in AIR International May 2015, on page 13, I read:
"LRS-B will almost certain be able of supersonic cruise"
Does this mean supercruise, and what would this mean for the engines?