West Texas Spanloader

a reply to: grey580

All true but he did say a secure VPN.

Doesn't even sound like a VPN to me if it's site based - sounds more a VLAN running a secure, thin client desktop session- but whatever.......

Back to the Aircraft: General consensus seems to be "sex" for the Boeing entry.....but what are we talking here: shape, propulsion, systems integration- all of the above?

a reply to: Jukiodone

Dude I am not having sex with any of the lrs-b entries. I bet you every single slot , intake or vent is covered with some type of plasma actuators. Sounds painful and dangerous. Plus the AI might not stand for it. Who knows what kinda protocols its got programmed. I mean take a look at your phones Siri. She doesn't take any crass behavior I bet what ever is in control of this new bird is far more uptight about some late night fun on the apron

a reply to: Jukiodone

You mean Lockheed/ Boeing entry? I bet she excels in all of those categories. Can't wait until the day she's revealed to the public. Heard she does have some sexy lines and capabilities. And will be a departure from the looks of the b2

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I wonder of it has anything to do with this old concept that Lockheed was showing around a few years ago:

aviationintel.com...

www.popsci.com...

That planform certainly fits the bill for a transonic/super cruise capable stealth aircraft, think a cross between a B-1B and an F-22, but without afterburners. Technologically, it would be a pretty simple and straightforward aircraft to design and build.

Given the contracts that Northrop has been given since it leapfrogged the Skunk Works and won the B-2 competition (low production runs of extreme low-observable ultra high-value assets like the RQ-180), it would seem that Northrop has held on to its edge in terms of absolute stealth technology.

That being the case, it would make sense to see a higher performance, less exotically stealthy aircraft from Lockheed/Boeing. Meanwhile, the N-G design, from what we've heard, seems to be much more ambitious in terms of stealth-enhancing technologies.

Which is why the fast, sexy-looking-but-relatively-straightforward LM/Boeing design seems to be doing pretty well while the exotic control systems of the extreme-VLO NG design have been having teething problems despite it's relatively simple, airliner-like flight envelope.

We all know that Northrop has all but outed it's "B-2 2.0" LRS-B design via images of "concept" aircraft, would it be a huge surprise of Lockheed hasn't already done the same as well?

a reply to: grey580

Correct, a virtual private network. But just as on an internal network, none of the data has to be stored or transferred to the local machine. That was the point I was trying to make. So if someone steals the laptop the information will not be available without the key to the kingdom so to speak. The laptop drive may also be encrypted.

I have a separate question, if Rockwell Collins is working on flight controls for the LRS-B, which team is it working with?

a reply to: Barnalby

Or maybe closer to something like this?

forum.keypublishing.com...

www.bing.com... 8030205587096740&thid=JN.AoTOq2n8tipL2ULNq71yng&ajaxhist=0

Notice how this aircraft looks very, very similar to the one you posted above. But there are differences. One is a drone the other manned. The one you posted has humongous engines on top, and looks like she's built for extreme speed. And winglets. A longer neck or chime. etc.

Crazy Bassplyr speculation moment based on just my pure off the wall speculation:

I think the aircraft you posted a depiction of and the one I posted are very similar. I think part of the reason the Lockheed bird won was because it had a technology that Lockheed had succeeded in in a previous bird that roams the skies. They wanted that tech on the bomber. They took/borrowed ideas they knew from that tech and transferred it over or reworked it for a bomber type of craft. Same general shape but modified for a bomber role. Shorten up the neck length. Make the midsection thicker for a payload. Hide the engines deeper in the body- they wouldn't need as much air as what it's borrowed from. Basically use tried and true technology that they have smoothed the kinks out of and can guarantee works on their bomber.

I believe that the pic you posted is very close to a real bird currently flying. Just my speculation. Obviously there will be things different in that depiction from the real thing that make all the difference. Like what the tail is doing or looking like etc. Other items on the bird. I believe the pic you posted is a bomber/not a bomber (mostly not) if you catch my drift. Or close to what the bird looks like.

But that there is some cross over in the two birds. I mean that first pic (the one you posted) those are some humongous engines for a bomber. Even one going 1.3 mach.

Again all the above is just my speculation, but that's what I see.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Barnalby
But that there is some cross over in the two birds. I mean that first pic (the one you posted) those are some humongous engines for a bomber. Even one going 1.3 mach.

ADVENT engines are essentially high-bypass turbofans and have the cross-sections to match. They're going to be big, especially if this thing is a non afterburner-equipped ~1.3 mach supercruiser that's optimized for long-range subsonic flight. If that's the case, then it has huge engines for the same reason that the 787 has huge engines, which is fuel economy rather than mach 2.0+ performance.

a reply to: Barnalby

No, they're not that big. They were designed to go into a bomber sized platform. The engines will be similar in size to B-1 and B-2 engines.

a reply to: Barnalby

Totally possible. But notice the thick body will easily hold two of four ADVENT engines in the second series of pics (the ones I posted) plus a payload. For enhanced stealth I would bury the engines in the body intakes and exhaust on top. not have the entire engine as a blister on top. A good reason to put a large intake like in the fist pics (the one you posted) instead of the stealthier ones on the second set of pictures is to feed massive very hungry engines that suck air like a mofo. If they intend to use ADVENT on a bomber they want to keep as stealthy as possible why would they develop a flaw into the design where it needed massive intakes?

Although ultimately, I can not argue with your post cause it has as much if not more merit than mine and makes plenty of sense.

But my initial argument regarding the two birds depicted having different missions but a shared technology was not in regards to propulsion. But something else that is pretty handy to have.

This is ADVENT.

Here's something I ponder. The wing tips of the new bomber. Would it need wingtips shaped like that these days for when they need to have a stable platform at low speeds to drop ordinance? Like nowa days would a B1 for instance even need to slow down much and deploy it's wing all the way forward for stability at slow speeds to drop bombs? Wouldn't it have the capability to just fly through and drop its ordinance leaving the guidance and precision to other assets to do for the munitions the b1 sortie has just dropped like a satellite or another bird?

So would Lockheed's new bomber even need those winglets depicted in the first picture? And if does decide to keep those winglets (presumably for stability at slow speeds) would that be indicative that the winglets are there for another purpose besides stability at slow speed?

It's possible those winglets are there and shaped like that for added lift during takeoff? Would a design like the one I posted need something like that for added lift to get it off the ground initially? Are they there for some other reason? Maybe all of the above? Can those winglets do anything else besides sit there or maybe retract like MAW? Can they possibly MAW in more than one direction like back or like in the anhedral position? What could that possibly achieve? Any ideas out there from other members?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Winglets and curved wingtips are to reduce drag. They prevent the air from becoming turbulent as it rolls off the wingtip until it's clear of the wing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Precisely!

a reply to: BASSPLYR

The "LR" in LRS-B stands for "Long Range". Don't forget that.

As I've said before, this aircraft is by all indications meant to be to the B-1/B-2 what the 2016 Honda Accord V6 is to the 1980's BMW M5 (in terms of performance) or the 1980s Citroen CX (in terms of drag, fuel economy). Aka the exact same real-world thing, but with much improved cost, reliability, and fuel economy due to 2015-era technology and economies of scale.

a reply to: Barnalby

I'm sure it has some new tricks up it's sleeve that the B1 or B2 didn't have. People aren't hyped up on it simply cause it flies and does some 4th gen stealth at a lower cost. There's more to it I'm sure.

As far as long range. I'm sure it has plenty of range to penetrate deep into foreign airspace, considering that as a military we've spent a ton in the last decade or two trying to do just that, make it so a lot of our new gen aircraft can base and launch from the continental US with out forward bases and still penetrate deeper than Ron Jeremy after double dosing whatever those pills are that he markets at 7-11.

So I gather what we'll see is some kind of Neo-B2?

Basically a big, black flying wing that looks just a tiny bit different from the B-2 that we already have?

New technologies/electronics, engines and capabilities -- but carry the overall shape/design?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Blended wing maybe?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

At least NG's is. With X-47ish wings and a rounded nose but yeah pretty much. Lockmart/Boeing's is still a mystery but rumor has it it is not like the other.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
So I gather what we'll see is some kind of Neo-B2?

Basically a big, black flying wing that looks just a tiny bit different from the B-2 that we already have?

New technologies/electronics, engines and capabilities -- but carry the overall shape/design?

I think it will look more regular airplane shaped, more like a B-1 without swing-wing and with more shrouded engines.

And sure, a Boeing 707 looks a whole lot like a 787 from a distance but one sure has way better gas mileage.