US Air Force LRS-B Bomber Thread


anzha

Junior Member
Registered Member
Pictures or it didn't happen?? LOL, I'm not saying they didn't, but I'm very skeptical of having something near proto-type status flying, more likely "proof of concept" at best??? but they do know they've got issues with the wing?? but more specifically the "induction system"
Smile. it's on camera. At least for northrop:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As I said, demonstrators. That doesn't mean prototypes.

In the real universe Bub, tell me when we've launched highly sophisticated new aircraft that have not doubled or tripled prices in the Prototype, LRIP stage, this chick is NOT ready for primetime? they are shooting for 550 million, I'll call it at least 800 million,
Northrop claims below $550M in 2015 $. Note. All the development is on a cost plus. The manufacturing is on a firm, fixed price.

it should be noted, the USAF forced a mission change on the B-2 the first time around. Originally, it was going to be a high altitude bomber. The USAF during the 80s wanted it to go low altitude. That forced two more years of development, delayed the program and increased the price. The RCO is running things differently. No changes for capabilities or mission, etc. If they stick to it, I bet they get the $ right.

However, I've been wrong before and will be again.

and probably closer to the big 1.0 for Raptor 2.1, LOL!
When were we talking raptors?
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Smile. it's on camera. At least for northrop:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As I said, demonstrators. That doesn't mean prototypes.



Northrop claims below $550M in 2015 $. Note. All the development is on a cost plus. The manufacturing is on a firm, fixed price.

it should be noted, the USAF forced a mission change on the B-2 the first time around. Originally, it was going to be a high altitude bomber. The USAF during the 80s wanted it to go low altitude. That forced two more years of development, delayed the program and increased the price. The RCO is running things differently. No changes for capabilities or mission, etc. If they stick to it, I bet they get the $ right.

However, I've been wrong before and will be again.



When were we talking raptors?
"Brain Fart" I was trying to repeat your B-2 2.1, sorry.....
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
No worries. Just wanted to make sure. best to ask rather than assume.

You have Raptors on the brain, my friend. :)
Yes, Raptors, Cardinal's, motorcycles, cars, Smith and Wessons, all that kool stuff,, but again, the Raptor is a very important airplane? no?
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
True, but I liked the YF-23 more. ;)
I understand, I have a YF-23 and an F-22 on my flight simulator,, Jeff Head is also a big fan of the YF-23,,, like the Beech Bonanza, those V-tails look exotic, get rid of two more control surfaces, so you have less drag, and fewer reflective surfaces..

So either of those two designs would be fine with me, the YF-23 is also a high speed, high altitude fighter, very L/O, but it would have to grow a little in the real world, for my money, they could both upsize to increase internal weapons bay size and still be extremely agile...

I would also dispense with OVT, heavy, maintenance intensive, and gain a lot more fuel and thrust, either of them should be built with the new high zoot upgrade engines..

but I will add this caveat, when you get rid of control surfaces, you have LESS control... think about it, the V-tail Bonanza had a really bad "tail wag" at speed in turbulence, the solution?? and "Air Skeg", yep, just a couple of lower fuselage strakes to anchor the tail...

and nobody has flow a tailless design supersonic for that very reason....

as for LRS-B, I'm rather certain that LRS-FB would be my flavor of the day
 

Top