LRS-B (new stealth bomber) speculation

originally posted by: Zaphod58
On an interesting note, while driving past the Belgrade Montana airport today there were three Boeing chase aircraft parked in front of a medium sized hangar. That's in the middle of nowhere, and an interesting place to see Boeing chase aircraft.

One day...one day you'll get an interview without coffee.

Till then - Hat doffed Mr Crystal Ball. Hat Doffed.

They must hate you real bad.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yes, definitely. A lot of work has gone into LPI and similar developments to make those transmissions look more like background noise than a signal. Anything like that- various forms of radar, uplinks, radio communications, etc are all potentially detectable.

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yes, definitely. A lot of work has gone into LPI and similar developments to make those transmissions look more like background noise than a signal. Anything like that- various forms of radar, uplinks, radio communications, etc are all potentially detectable.

Funny you should say that - I was looking at a sonar system that utilises 'randomly generated back ground frequencies' instead of the typical harsh 'static pulse' in todays boats.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I hate Great Falls, MT. So did Lewis & Clark. In fact, in their journals they mention how barren, windy, and desolate it was. The fact that they ran out of "drink" at that point in their expedition was also not overlooked in their assessment.

Perhaps it was just a refueling stop?

a reply to: Astr0

What's funny is that now his "friends" who are following him on here aren't gonna know whether he had inside info or he did in fact just drive past it lol

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Small world, I used to live on Malmstrom in Great Falls (dad was AF). BTW, Glasgow is used now to test the various engines used on Boeing aircraft. Don't remember exactly where I learned that from, but I'm pretty sure (at least at the time), that its true.

*Edit to add, the testing was for noise, related to issues of noise-abatement or something like that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

BTW, if you are ever down south in the Ennis/Bozeman area let me know, I'll buy you lunch, a cup of coffee or a beer.

a reply to: Astr0
""When it ramps up for the first time in public, I already posted what the majority of planet earth will say.


OMFREAKINGZGODZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!! ALIENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 ROSWELL DID IT111111!!!!!!!! AREA 51 IS SECRET SPACE BASE UNDERGROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!ALIENZZZZZZ!!!!!! ""

Do you think it will be the public reaction when the LRS-B will be publicly disclose ?

a reply to: darksidius

No. Thats for when the triangles if ever are disclosed. THe bomber will just be a "holy crap that's awesome, america is back baby! Take that other world militaries! kinda thing."

a reply to: BASSPLYR
Ok I make a mistake I thinking it was for the new bomber

a reply to: darksidius

If the new bomber had any kind of capabilities this craft had they wouldn't have been giving it a show for the Russian spy sats lol

i dont think people realize how big this thing is.

its huge.

They look at it and think fighter, its not, its the size of a business jet and that missile is like 6 tonnes or something.

You know what I'd like to see? A comeback of the tactical bomber. Not a spin off of another platform like the Strike Eagle, but an honest to God, down in the weeds, from the ground up tactical bomber.

The F-111 could be a nightmare maintenance wise, but when it worked, it was damn near unstoppable.

Put new technology on a down in the weeds bomber, and you would OWN the battlefield and airspace.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's easier to manage signature at medium-/high-altitudes than it is down in the weeds. But sure, give it supercruise or Mach 2 dash ability, why not? It'll keep the booms busy haha

a reply to: _Del_

Oh it would be harder, but then down in the weeds you have terrain to help mask it as well. Put a pair of F136s in it, and turn it loose.

I actually really miss the 'Vark. Hell of a bird she was.

Yeah I miss the F-111 also. It shouldn't have been cut...or at least the EF-111 should have stayed in service. Reading articles and books from back in the "good old days" of the Cold War during the 80s, it was supposed to be in service until 2025-2030 with upgrades. Didn't even serve a full 30 years of what it was supposed too.

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: Zaphod58

It's easier to manage signature at medium-/high-altitudes than it is down in the weeds. But sure, give it supercruise or Mach 2 dash ability, why not? It'll keep the booms busy haha

Speaking of that, does anyone know how much fuel the B-1 used in afterburner?

a reply to: boomer135

Not as much as you'd think. They used to piss off the F-15 drivers, because they'd just light off the afterburners and run the Eagle guys out of fuel getting away.

250,000lb per hour at sea level.

a reply to: boomer135

One of the very few "kills" HiANG had against a B-1, they were head to head, the fighter just under mach 1, the bomber just over. The fighter managed to tine his turn perfectly and drop in behind them for a missile shot.

Just about every other time the bomber left them in the dust.