/k/ - Weapons » Thread #27747947

[21 / 6 / ?]

28KiB, 600x450, B2 bomber.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 19:55:28 No.27747947 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748060 >>27748126 >>27748137 >>27748158

So what do you guys think that new bomber is going to look like?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:01:39 No.27748020 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Three F-35s in a trenchcoat

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:05:10 No.27748060 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27747947

I don't think they're going to change the flying wing design. So it will probably look very similar to the B-2, at least externally.

The flying wing is ideal for when you care about range much more than you care about speed or maneuverability.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:09:45 No.27748105 Report Delete

Quoted By:

A black triangle with pulse detonation nozzles that let it go from hypersonic then spin to a stationary hover in a second

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:10:46 No.27748118 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Probably going to be similar to the B2 with a more refined shape, updated RAM coatings, and a pair of F-135 based engines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:11:13 No.27748123 Report Delete

Quoted By:

OP pic related.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2093835.jpg, 431KiB, 1200x812

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:11:27 No.27748126 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27747947

This but painted black.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 32178-northrop-grumman-x-47b-128 (...).jpg, 156KiB, 1280x800

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:12:21 No.27748137 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27747947
maybe something like their stealth drone?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:14:23 No.27748158 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748171 >>27748196 >>27748240

>>27747947

I'm certain that it will be a flying wing. The only question is how big it will be. The fact that they're calling it a "strike bomber" rather than a "strategic bomber" makes me think that the payload will be less than the B2. Somewhere in the neighborhood of the 15,000 kg.

Phil Ossiferz Stone !!esSirF6LRYN

Phil Ossiferz Stone !!esSirF6LRYN Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:15:24 No.27748171 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748244 >>27748284

>>27748158
What's the range supposed to be on the bugger? Do we know ANYTHING about it yet?

/grinds teeth

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:17:02 No.27748196 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27748158
Sounds about right, since one of the requirements is that it's able to drop the MOP, which is about ~14,000kgs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:21:20 No.27748240 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27748158

>Do we know ANYTHING about it yet?

Nope. We're still in the "mad speculation based on rumor" phase. But the Aardvark had a capacity of about 14,300 kg, so I figure another strike bomber would aim for about the same. I'm sticking with 15,000 kg.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Texas-vs-Kansas-mystery-planes[1].jpg, 54KiB, 748x453

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:21:25 No.27748243 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Like one of these.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:21:33 No.27748244 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748309

>>27748171
>As of January 2015, the only unclassified information on the proposed LRS-B is that production is targeted at 80–100 aircraft, it will replace the B-52 and B-1 bomber fleets, it will be stealthy, mature technologies will be used rather than launching new developments, although it will have an open architecture for future features, and initial operational capability is planned for the mid-2020s with certification to carry nuclear weapons approved two years later; optional manning is still being discussed. With a target price of $550 million per aircraft, Defense News quoted a source with knowledge of the program predicting that the LRS-B may be smaller than the B-2, perhaps half the size, powered by two engines in the Pratt & Whitney F135 power class.[57] The target unit cost of $550 million is based on 2010 dollars and is $606 million in 2016 dollars.[58]

>In early September 2015, the Air Force revealed that development of the LRS-B was much further along than had been publically acknowledged, and more than usually is before a contract award. Final requirements had been locked down since May 2013. Both competitors had mature proposals with prototyping activities and wind tunnel tests along with subsystems, although no demonstrator had been built. The designs are "very different" from each other with widely different teams on subsystems such as engines, electronic warfare suites, and communications systems; subcontractors will likely not be announced when the winner is picked. The bomber seems similar to the B-2, but more advanced using improved materials for even better low observability, similar to or smaller in size, and will operate alone or as part of a strike package with other airborne assets. Conducting of tests and risk reduction this early in the acquisition process is in part because the program has been handled by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office since 2011, which has more freedom in how it procures technologies.

Pretty much it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:25:17 No.27748284 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27748171
It'll probably have an adaptive controller in it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:28:35 No.27748309 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748392

>>27748244

This may be a retard question, but wouldn't using a fighter engine in a bomber be bad for range? I mean, wouldn't you want an engine optimized for efficient cruising rather than maximum thrust?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 28KiB, 300x201

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:31:30 No.27748335 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748383

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:37:10 No.27748383 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27748335

I think that would be closer to Boeing/Lockheed's design. I'd be shocked if Northropp didn't go with the flying wing design based on what they've been doing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:37:37 No.27748392 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27748309
Not really. The F-14, 15, 16 and the B-1 share the same core engine design (with some differences).

Plus the F-135 is designed with stealth in mind.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CRANKEDKITEBESTKITE.png, 96KiB, 639x466

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:40:30 No.27748423 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>27748433

The B-3A Poltergeist will be a cranked kite. And called the B-3A Poltergeist.

Screen shot this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Oct 2015 20:42:08 No.27748433 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>27748423
COMPRESSING TIME AND SPACE.

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches