West Texas Spanloader

a reply to: Zaphod58

I hope I have not broken any mental NDA agreement.

lol @zaphod, this has turned into quite the barnum and bailey moment

@drwire, man you just are going to have to wait it out and see what the seas bring you

I'm not sure



what's going on.

a reply to: grey580

I think we found a way to get basic information without having to go to jail.

a reply to: drwire

Not to go all meta on everyone over here, but I wonder if there wasn't some deeper symbolism in comparing the fitter to the frogfoot.

The frogfoot is basically the A-10 Thunderboltski, a YA-9 with extra servings of borscht, stroganoff, and stoli. It's a fantastic workhorse and one of the best air-to-ground/CAS aircraft ever built. A jet-powered sturmovik, an ugly CAS truck that gets the job done with a minimum of glitziness.

The fitter on the other hand is flashy. Frankensteining swing-wings onto what was essentially a MIG-21 airframe to build a single-engined Kruschev-era Panavia Tornado. That said, it was also severely hampered by all the sexy technologies that it carried, and was arguably inferior to its much less sexy strike successor in terms of payload, reliability, and useability.

Given the USAF's well-known preference for sexy over functional, I wonder if Zaph was trying to tell us something about the relative qualities of the winning LM-Boeing bid vs the losing NG plane. He's hinted at the sexiness and technological prowess of the winning plane, and yet while nobody would deny the general sexiness and cool tech toys of the Fitter, history has certainly remembered the Frogfoot as the better strike platform.

So meta, if that's the case...

a reply to: Barnalby

Or......

I'm just being mean and screwing with you guys and happened to have those two pictures uploaded already.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm going with mean.

Although I do like DRwire's breakdown of the two planes.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I can't believe that you think that I, who gives you guys all this info out of the goodness of my heart, would deliberately be mean to you guys!

a reply to: Zaphod58

TO be fair I've been meaner to you than the other way around. Trying to make up for it.




Now, about the two bombers. If I were the USAF I would order a bunch of the Lockheed/Boeing birds for most of the work. Have it do the B1 & B2 load. Have it be VLO & Fast. Like a stealthed up B1 with the B2's low observability skills.

Then secretly tell Northrup to develop an even more advanced version of their bomber (letting them know you only plan to order 2 or 3 of them for extra special missions, where you need something as VVVVVLO as possible) Put all the bells and whistles on it like the original B2 before the changes. And have that as an ace up their sleeves, to hit things that are deemed just too hard to hit with the regular bomber.

a reply to: Barnalby

Thanks for your input.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

that job could me made with refurbished B2?, or the LRS-B exceed the stealth B-2 capabilities?.

a reply to: drwire

The LRS-B far exceeds the B-2s RCS. It's similar in other areas.

They might look like this.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

TO be fair I've been meaner to you than the other way around. Trying to make up for it.

Now, about the two bombers. If I were the USAF I would order a bunch of the Lockheed/Boeing birds for most of the work. Have it do the B1 & B2 load. Have it be VLO & Fast. Like a stealthed up B1 with the B2's low observability skills.

Then secretly tell Northrup to develop an even more advanced version of their bomber (letting them know you only plan to order 2 or 3 of them for extra special missions, where you need something as VVVVVLO as possible) Put all the bells and whistles on it like the original B2 before the changes. And have that as an ace up their sleeves, to hit things that are deemed just too hard to hit with the regular bomber.

What you saw was dark, very dark.. I am guessing the LRS-B we'll see is a next generation B-2, definitely with advanced avionics and integrated optics (like the F-35), Perhaps even with advanced engine technology.. I actually can't wait to see it when it comes out in daylight.. The advanced tech is the ace in the hole only a few of us will get to see. I saw one of those when I way a little kid, very easy to mistake for an alien craft..

a reply to: clay2 baraka

It will use ADVENT engines.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So she got legs?

Interesting to say "It Will" vs "It IS" Wonder what the green eye monster is packing already..Sabre?

a reply to: Blackfinger

Much more fun.

No.

"In 2007 this program was merely a concept, today (2012) ADVENT is reality"...

Advent Core Engine

Core Testings Begins Summer 2012
First Full Engine to Test, 2013.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I can't believe that you think that I, who gives you guys all this info out of the goodness of my heart, would deliberately be mean to you guys!

Share the pain and rejection with me, brother. I've been dog-cussed by the best for not sharing the spookier bits of things. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya.

eta: Saw this today. How do you launch a U2 when you run out of pogo wheels? Like THIS: