Some Interesting News about the LRS-B Program

a reply to: Virgil Cain

They fly in formation from time to time.

share.shutterfly.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: betweenprojects

That it was. Just enough revealed to show it's something new and get people to sit up. And if some of the other activities I heard about are accurate that wasn't the only message sent.

Interesting analysis there @ "Betweenprojects" and in conjunction with Zaphs comments I agree with your sentiment.

I did (at the time) keep an eye out for anomalous news reports/web gossip and the only thing that was happening in Russia at the time was sinkholes..... and that seemed altogether too terrestrial.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh this is easy.........

The only subtle message is that when viewed from space it was invisible, top side cloaking, the grainy amarillo pics then combined with the sat view of the B-2s would get the pant crap factor going. The explains the wavy contrail action also, the sat picks up the contrails, not the bird.

So the new bomber has cloacking tech, nice.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
Interesting analysis there @ "Betweenprojects" and in conjunction with Zaphs comments I agree with your sentiment.

Thanks! Their egregious use of "contrail camouflage" was a nice touch (and more than a little ironic), especially considering that the formation leading B-2 undoubtedly has the most comprehensive situational awareness regarding contrail suppression of any aircraft type ever developed.

Some initial reports after the sighting speculated that the contrails were intended to draw special attention to the formation, but it seems apparent that it was a concealment tactic (along with other tactics that may have been used earlier and later in the same flight when visibility was not desired). Their own personal Hide-n-Scoot in the sky. It's a safe guess that the final B-2 bringing up the rear was equally important to fulfill mission parameters.

Just to appreciate what this means, having the contrail strategy work depended upon accounting for numerous variables, such as altitude, humidity, temperature, distance in trail from lead aircraft, contrail dissipation, and half a dozen other things that are interrelated. And this crew and planners got everything right -- Bravo. Hopefully they achieved a successful outcome from the operation, not to mention brief public recognition of awesomeness, even if it was just for a quick overflight.

No new information here -- hiding a developmental flight vehicle by utilizing another aircraft (e.g., tanker), and flying in formation with similarly-shaped planform companions for obfuscation is common knowledge and something that's been done since at least the 60's, probably even earlier. Once again, proving that 99.99% of the time, you will only see what they want you to see. And this time, lucky us, they wanted someone to see.

On another note, I can think of half a dozen reasons why specifically the NG bird was the one that flew that day. But without any solid references to dazzle you with, it would just sound like pure speculation from an anonymous internet drive-by. But it was the Northrup Grumman article, because reasons.

Sorry for the long post. I hardly ever talk online so I gotta purge while I can.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Okay. I can talk pretty authoritatively on Ukraine. I have family in the Donbas and family that fled the Donbas.

1. The shooting down of MH17 was 10000% done by a BUK SAM. They even attempted to smuggle the launcher out of Ukraine and were observed by cell phone cameras pretty much the whole way. There was no secret platform. This was a Vincennes moment, pure and simple. It was also pure stupidity rather than intentional.

The irony is the Russians were accusing the Ukrainians of flying an Su-25 in close formation with the airliner when it became undeniable they'd shot it down. This is EXACTLY what the Russians are doing to obscure how many fighters are going into Syria, but with their transports.

2. As far as us provoking the Russians in Ukraine, it was rather the contrary. The state department kept telling Ukraine NOT go get into a fight with the Russians over Crimea. The Russians then assumed when the Ukrainians didn't fight back, they'd be able to take the rest of what they wanted from Ukraine (Donbass, Left Bank and Southern Ukraine (aka Odessa)). What they didn't anticipate was that most Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east saw themselves as Ukrainians, not Russians. Kharkiv was the dog that didn't bark. Odessa was largely the same. Donetsk and Lugansk were only held by the 'rebels' (really Russians across the border) because the Russian army rolled in during August/September 2014 to fight the Ukrainians. Had they not, the war would have been over within a month. Even so, the Ukrainians gave the Russians a bloody nose when it happened. The Russians lost far, far more than what has been publicly acknowledged.

I could discuss this in a lot of detail. However, its really OT.

To steer it back on topic, no, there wasn't a Russian black platform. They have a LOT of material science issues, especially in manufacturing. Take a close look at the PAK-FA videos. I don't mean the fancy flight ones. The ones where the pilot did the first flight, for example. The gaps between panels are bad. Note the rivets too. That the aircraft was called a stealth aircraft was...surprising...based on those alone. My only speculation is the first prototype was an aerodynamic prototype only.

a reply to: anzha

Hello anzha,
I think you completely misunderstood my post.
I think we have the undisclosed ISR platform that may have actually been on station when the airliner was shot down.
Something that can loiter undetected and gather up not only visual evidence but also electronic data, such as the local cell phone calls we are to be able to intercept, the military version of a stingray.
What used to take a fairly large aircraft to house now can be fit in a briefcase.
If we released them evidence we have, it would tip our hand as to what some of our new capabilities are.

And we weren't try to provoke the Russians, just remind them that while they are trotting around in their bears, that nobody is really afraid of anymore, we have new toys that would make any misadventures, in the future, very painful for them indeed.

On a side note I am starting to think one of the driving factors behind the Syria intervention is the need to camouflage the mounting casualties coming from Eastern Ukraine.

Well that's interesting.

News to me. Didn't think we had an isr platform flying in the day time that captured the shoot down of the plane.

Thought it was satellites.

originally posted by: grey580
Well that's interesting.

News to me. Didn't think we had an isr platform flying in the day time that captured the shoot down of the plane.

Thought it was satellites.

What got me was the fact we said we have hard evidence indicating Russian involvement, everybody expects us to have satellites tasked to observe, and we know that they know. But why not release it, when everybody already knows we have those capabilities.
If we do have a platform capable of daylight incursions into contested airspace, that would a cat not to let out of the bag.

a reply to: punkinworks10

The green lady, flying at max. altitude, at max. speed would be impossible to see any time of the day. In fact it's probably more stealthy during the daylight hours than at night time with a green streak shooting out her rear.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: punkinworks10

The green lady, flying at max. altitude, at max. speed would be impossible to see any time of the day. In fact it's probably more stealthy during the daylight hours than at night time with a green streak shooting out her rear.

True that Sammamishman,
Another thing to consider is that cell signals have a line of site range of about 10-15 miles, and we proved we have the ability to listen to local cell calls hundreds of miles out of range of the signal itself.

a reply to: punkinworks10

There are at least four, possibly as many as seven platforms that could have done it. Four penetrating, three non-penetrating.

Add in platforms like the MC-12 or EC-130 and that number grows.

a reply to: Zaphod58
To really be if use it has be practically invisible, to be able to loiter long enough to be use use for signal gathering.

a reply to: punkinworks10

The RC-135 is truly useful, and can pick up phone calls and radio signals from a long way out.

a reply to: punkinworks10

My apologies. I'm a bit triggery about the Donbass War and the Crimean Anschluss. My extended family lost a lot. Their homes, their livelihoods and are refugees because of it. It really bends me out of shape when the media called it a civil war or rebellion. Ten percent (tops) of the fighters for the DNR and LNR were locals. Most were plain Russians and not even ones who lived locally.

Again, my apologies.

I would wonder a bit about the ISR platform. The Russians were caught a few times in August and September 2014 in artillery traps. Its possible the information was passed along from the platform, but I doubt it. Everything that happened in the Donbass War was very easily attributable to local assets. So, short version, possible, but not color me skeptical.

a reply to: anzha

There are three classified platforms that could easily do it, none of which would have their Intel shared with anyone but a very close, very long term ally.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

There are three classified platforms that could easily do it, none of which would have their Intel shared with anyone but a very close, very long term ally.

In other words, they wouldn't have shared with Ukraine?

a reply to: AtomicMod

They probably wouldn't share it with a big chunk of NATO.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: punkinworks10

My apologies. I'm a bit triggery about the Donbass War and the Crimean Anschluss. My extended family lost a lot. Their homes, their livelihoods and are refugees because of it. It really bends me out of shape when the media called it a civil war or rebellion. Ten percent (tops) of the fighters for the DNR and LNR were locals. Most were plain Russians and not even ones who lived locally.

Again, my apologies.

I would wonder a bit about the ISR platform. The Russians were caught a few times in August and September 2014 in artillery traps. Its possible the information was passed along from the platform, but I doubt it. Everything that happened in the Donbass War was very easily attributable to local assets. So, short version, possible, but not color me skeptical.

No applogies needed anzha,
I can understand how personal it can become when you have family and loved ones involved.
And I hate to say it, but this site is full of a bunch pro Russian/putin fan boys that will try anything to avoid the truth, even when it smacks them in the face.
I have taken the conflict a little more personal, than I usually would , for a couple of reasons.
A) Part of my family hails from Ukraine, even though its been over 100 years since that part of the family came over,I'm sure there are still relatives there.
And several years ago I met a wonderful person from Ukraine, who had left to study in Europe, just after the pro Russian regime came to power. I cant remember what city she was from, but one day nearly all of the local municipal government was replaced with Russians. She went back in Dec. of '13, but has not been heard from by her friends here since.
B) Being a child of the cold war, I had hoped we had put all this east west chest thumping behind us, but since Mr. Putin came to power, the Russian Federation has embraced a Mafia political structure.
We don't want war with Russia, but Russia seems to want to provoke an international situation, that would be disasterous for the whole planet.

And there many similarities to the run up to WW2 in the present situation.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Part of the reason I am skeptical of the ISR platform is because the Russians caught the Ukrainians in artillery traps, too. Plain Jane Drones work, too.

I am not Ukrainian myself. My kids are half Ukrainian. I'm very American mutt, with a family that has a history of marrying immigrants.

There are several parallels with WW2. However, I think Russia is far more crippled internally than Germany was. Also I had lunch with an army officer during the late 90s and we both agreed the 90s felt a lot like the 1920s.

However, the fundamental problem with the Russians is we committed the ultimate sin in their eyes: we ignored them. This is an affront on so many levels I cannot come close to explaining. At the end of the Cold War, the Russians (proverbially) said, "Great! We're not enemies anymore! We can rule the world together!" The Americans said, "Great! We're not enemies! We don't have to pay attention to you anymore!" Our collective culture clash created the situation.

The Russians shouldn't expect to be treated as a peer. They're not. OTOH, we shouldn't expect to be able to completely ignore them either.

My personal hope was that after the Cold War, we'd work Russia into NATO and then get ready to face the next Big Bad: China. Not to be though. 3 different presidents have screwed that up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm guessing that it's also the only ally we've given the full F-35 system to...

The same one which more or less proved that it could independently build a 5th-generation fighter back in the early 90s, if only it could find a way to pay for it...