Firefly 2 said:
Am I correct in discerning a podded piggyback engine?

That's what I think too... The dark oval zone at the back being the exhaust. The butterfly fins are pretty much in the same configuration as the F-117's. In fact the whole thing looks a bit like a much swept back Nighthawk with the wings being so far back they needed to add an extra pair on the sides!
 
YGBSM! Even if it was just marketing from Lockheed, it looks awesome.

As for Persistor, I was noticing the same thing about the engine placement too.
 
My theory is between that and a name like "Persistor", maybe this was meant as a fast, unmanned, delivery system with a long loiter time. Just my theory.
 
Certainly holds water. I was thinking along the same lines about the name.
 
The swing wing (Wallis Swallow) nature of the " Persistor" and its context (several other M >2 UAS) indicates it is a high mach penetrator (wings swept) that can then cruise at low mach (wings straight) for long periods. Of course while they seem to have the aerodynamics solved what about the engine dysmorphism?
 
A short story from the Air Force Association daily report:

A Longer Wait for Long Range Strike: Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn warns not to expect a full-blown plan for a new bomber in next year’s defense budget. Speaking Thursday at an Aerospace Industries Association event in the US Capitol, Lynn said the Pentagon is assessing now which companies and which technologies will need sustainment to preserve options in developing a "portfolio" of long range strike capabilities. “There are three main companies that have capabilities, so you’re maintaining those companies with the prospect that you would then compete them,” Lynn said. “We’re in the midst now of a series of studies that are trying to identify programmatically which—and on what schedule—to fund that approach.” There will be "more definition" of LRS technologies in the 2012 budget, but that probably won't be “the final step." He emphasized, "We’ll get more definitive as we move on."
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The swing wing (Wallis Swallow) nature of the " Persistor" and its context (several other M >2 UAS) indicates it is a high mach penetrator (wings swept) that can then cruise at low mach (wings straight) for long periods. Of course while they seem to have the aerodynamics solved what about the engine dysmorphism?

I suppose one approach is some sort of ramjet surrounding a turbine and simply have a sliding inlet cone/cowl to seal off the turbine at speed (like the SR-71 Blackbird's J58), but that needs a clean axisymetric inlet normally. You could do something similar to combined cycle engine setups, with a variable ramp closing off the turbine inlet and feeding a 2D ramjet. You would end up with something resembling the Surprise Fighter in terms of geometry, with an internally stacked dual engine setup.

Pushing a bad idea farther, is it possible to take something like the JSF engine, and use the excess shaft horsepower to drive a secondary compressor? My mind suddenly thought of the Marquardt SERJ, but in this case it's more like an auxiliary supercharged ramjet of sorts (correct term is air turboramjet or fan assisted ramjet?) using a direct (rather than gas) driven compressor, and the main turbine is where the action normally is. This would give you dual mode using a variable split ramp if you can connect the secondary compressor via a clutch (magnetic?) with better efficiency than a simple ramjet, but at the cost of increased weight and complexity (well, compared to a variable split ramp feeding a dumb 2D ramjet and a turbine).
 
From Insidedefense.com

Pentagon: Long-Range Strike Study To Relook Power Projection Concept
_______________________________________________
Date: May 6, 2010

The Defense Department’s ongoing long-range strike study will re-examine the “whole concept of power projection,” according to a Pentagon official.

The study is in the early stages, but the goal is to produce insights by early fall, in time to influence the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s review of the services’ fiscal year 2012 program objective memorandum (POM-12) submissions, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development David Ochmanek told Inside the Pentagon.

“We’re looking at the portfolio of long-range strike capabilities,” Ochmanek said, including “supporting elements of that, whether it’s penetrating [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance]; survivable command and control communications; weapons and munitions; base infrastructure -- really the whole concept of power projection is being relooked at.” There are no early takeaways from the study yet, Ochmanek said in an April 21 interview.

“No, we’re still at the point of refining the specific scenarios to be looked at, the target sets, the modalities of the analysis,” he said. The analysis is mulling the appropriate mix of long-range strike capabilities, including heavy bombers and non-nuclear Prompt Global Strike. The Quadrennial Defense Review called for the study to determine the best mix of joint persistent surveillance, electronic warfare, and precision-attack capabilities -- including both penetrating platforms and stand-off weapons -- for U.S. power projection over the next 20 to 30 years.

“We have been examining the potential as well for some sort of nontraditional long-range strike assets,” Ochmanek said. “You’ve heard about the Prompt Global Strike set of concepts. Where do they fit into an overall concept of operations? So that’s been going on sort of in parallel with an analysis of more traditional things like bombers and cruise missiles.”

To meet the potential threats to the American military’s ability to project power, deter aggression, and come to the aid of allies and partners, the QDR directs more focus and investment in a new air-sea battle concept, long-range strike, space and cyberspace, among other conventional and strategic modernization programs.

The QDR notes the Air Force is eying ways to field survivable, long-range surveillance and strike aircraft as part of a plan to modernize the bomber force and working with the Navy on options for a new joint cruise missile.

The Navy, meanwhile, is mulling ways to expand the capacity of future Virginia-class attack submarines for long-range strike while also planning experiments with prototypes of a Naval Unmanned Combat Aerial System, a drone that might one day greatly boost the range of carrier-based ISR and strike operations. In a speech Monday at the Navy League’s annual conference, Defense Secretary Robert Gates touted such efforts.

Gates called for extending the range at which U.S. naval forces can fight, refuel and strike with more resources devoted to long-range unmanned aircraft and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities; developing new sea-based missile defenses; giving the submarine force “expanded roles,” including conducting more missions deep inside an enemy’s battle network; increasing sub strike capability and using smaller and unmanned underwater platforms.

“Looking forward, we are focused on the challenge of anti-access adversaries and how we do power projection in a world where our adversaries have more capabilities to threaten our forces and bases in theaters of operation than has been the case in the past,” Ochmanek said.

The QDR discusses that, makes some “down payments on capabilities” and moves in that direction, “but there is more to be done,” Ochmanek added.

“We know other nations are working on asymmetric ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet,” Gates said Monday. “At the low end, Hezbollah, a nonstate actor, used anti-ship missiles against the Israeli navy in 2006. And Iran is combining ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, mines and swarming speedboats in order to challenge our naval power in that region.”

At the higher end of the access-denial spectrum, he said, U.S. forces now face long-range, accurate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles with the capability to strike from over the horizon.

“This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multibillion-dollar blue-water surface combatants, where, for example, a Ford-class carrier plus its full complement of the latest aircraft would represent potentially a $15 [billion] to $20 billion set of hardware at risk,” Gates said.

Gates said the agreement by the Navy and the Air Force to collaborate on an air-sea battle concept is “an encouraging development, which has the potential to do for America’s military deterrent power at the beginning of the 21st century what air-land battle did near the end of the 20th.” Work on the concept is progressing, Ochmanek said.

“That’s going on as well between the Air Force and the Navy and we’re very hopeful that’s going to come up with some new ways to skin this cat,” he told ITP. “There’s still in the study and analysis phase but we’re kind of following that pretty closely.” -- Christopher J. Castelli
 
AF Sec. Schwartz answers a question for Defense News on long range strike.

Q. What's your view of long-range strike?

A. I think the innovation in the Quadrennial Defense Review was - and it's something I agree with - that long-range strike isn't 100 percent defined by an Air Force platform. It is a family of systems.

The issue is: you have tactical aviation, you have long-range aviation, you have stand-off missile capability, you have penetration capability, you've got potential prompt global strike in a conventional intercontinental ballistic missile or conventional Trident missile, you've got electronic attack, you've got ISR pieces of it.

Fundamentally, the question is: Do we as an Air Force need to have a lone wolf? Or can we, like we suggest to other elements of the joint team, rely on other means to support our mission so that our platform doesn't have to be quite as exquisite? Again, that is an advantage of looking at this as a portfolio, as a family of systems that may allow us, at least up front, to have a machine that will accomplish the tasks required but not be so well-equipped that it can do it exclusively by itself.

The independent variable on all this will be cost. What I am trying hard to do is to move us beyond - and to move both our acquisition community, our requirements community - beyond wishful-thinking mode. The reality is that cost is going to be an issue. It may be that, to some degree, we will have to design to cost.
 
Short Paper from retired AF General Robert Elder on need for new long range strike aircraft.

http://www.afa.org/EdOp/PDFs/Long-RangeBomberNeed.pdf
 
flateric said:
'Old' Lockheed FSA in a slightly better quality.
Hi guys,
can anyone provide more info, links, pics (hi-resolution) or 3-view drawings of this LM proposal?
Thank you all in advance!
 
From the Air Force Association

B-1B to be 1st-Gen ISR/Strike Platform: The Air Force intends to put its concept for a future long-range intelligence-reconnaissance-surveillance/strike platform to the test with modifications to the B-1B bomber. "That is what is envisioned for the future arsenal of the Air Force: an aircraft that includes ISR, directed energy, and network attack," explained Col. Charles Sherwin, 427th Aircraft Sustainment Group commander at Tinker AFB, Okla. He added that "all" of these capabilities "are being integrated or demonstrated” on the B-1B in the immediate future. Under the electric laser on a large aircraft initiative, the service plans to install a directed energy weapon on the B-1. "In effect," said Sherwin, "uniting this capability" with the Sniper targeting pod already on the bomber will make the B-1 "a first- generation" long-range ISR/strike aircraft. (Tinker report by Brandice J. Armstrong)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like the Air Force is reading Dale Brown novels ;)
 
bobbymike said:
From the Air Force Association

B-1B to be 1st-Gen ISR/Strike Platform: The Air Force intends to put its concept for a future long-range intelligence-reconnaissance-surveillance/strike platform to the test with modifications to the B-1B bomber. "That is what is envisioned for the future arsenal of the Air Force: an aircraft that includes ISR, directed energy, and network attack," explained Col. Charles Sherwin, 427th Aircraft Sustainment Group commander at Tinker AFB, Okla. He added that "all" of these capabilities "are being integrated or demonstrated” on the B-1B in the immediate future. Under the electric laser on a large aircraft initiative, the service plans to install a directed energy weapon on the B-1. "In effect," said Sherwin, "uniting this capability" with the Sniper targeting pod already on the bomber will make the B-1 "a first- generation" long-range ISR/strike aircraft. (Tinker report by Brandice J. Armstrong)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like the Air Force is reading Dale Brown novels ;)

So Boeing is moving readily along from B-1R to B-1RL (or should that be B-1RDEW)?

The electric laser comment is interesting though. Considering the work with various "modules" for the B-1 bomb bays, it wouldn't be a difficult step to make a laser module (predecessor to the F-35's?), a generator/APU module, and a fuel tank module (reusing the tank design from the buddy tanker concept). I wonder how much of an issue it will be to allow the necessary electric cables and coolant pipes through the bulkhead separating the forward and middle bays (isn't there a START treaty related issue as to why the bulkhead can't be removed?).

Exploring the fantasy further, considering the number of B-1A and B-1B in mothballs, generating the airframes for this isn't horrific either. A related issue is whether the laser module system is a swappable system or a permanent upgrade. I can easily see the merits of permanently removing the bomb bay doors for at least the laser and generator modules, so that a small integrated strake/fin assembly could be installed for the laser ball turret, the radiator system, and the generator intake/exhaust.
 
The START treaty issue you mention states that the Bone's bulkhead will remain locked in the "middle" position, which separates the forward bay into two equal halves. This was done to prevent moving the bulkhead to the "forward" position, extending the dimensions of the rear half of the forward bay to allow a CSRL to be fitted with AGM-86B cruise missiles. This means that the Bone is not counted as an ALCM carrier under START. Cutting holes in the bulkhead to feed new pipes or wiring shouldn't be an issue provided the bulkhead isn't moved or done away with completely.
 
SOC said:
The START treaty issue you mention states that the Bone's bulkhead will remain locked in the "middle" position, which separates the forward bay into two equal halves. This was done to prevent moving the bulkhead to the "forward" position, extending the dimensions of the rear half of the forward bay to allow a CSRL to be fitted with AGM-86B cruise missiles. This means that the Bone is not counted as an ALCM carrier under START. Cutting holes in the bulkhead to feed new pipes or wiring shouldn't be an issue provided the bulkhead isn't moved or done away with completely.

Sean,

As a former START escort I can confirm the Russians verified that the bulkhead remained in the middle position. They also verified the external hard points where covered over in a "process equivalent to welding". The bulkhead is still movable, there are just no weapons qualified on the Bone that require the forward position, and there's no way, barring major changes you could put ALCM's on them (the only Bone that could is rotting away on the Edwards south base ramp). All this to say, in 6 years (3 maintenance, 3 test) working on/around the bone I never saw one moved even for maintenance purposes. And of course, START is expired, even though we still abide by it IIRC.

I've spent some time in class a while ago with some of the laser folks looking to use the Bone for their test. They've taken the bulkhead issue into account and have a plan. It's been a while so I forget exactly what it is, but you could either build new using the hard points in the bay or modify.

Cheers
 
No way! I was a START escort as well! Small world around here. The deal was that the Bone was supposed to be an ALCM carrier (hence the moving bulkhead when the AGM-86B got a lot longer), so they made it START accountable, covering the hardpoints, etc, to satisfy the Soviets/Russians as it was still a nuclear delivery platform (mainly AGM-69s). This was basically the same logic as "no you morons, it's not an intercontinental strategic bomber, but fine, we'll rip out the refuelling probes anyway". The funny part is that none of the operational Bones ever even had the ALCM software loaded, so they'd just have been able to carry them around as dead weight. That Bone at Edwards? It's got an extra antenna or something to make it identifiable on overhead imagery as the accountable ACM test bird. They fitted it with the external hardpoints at one point for the ACM trials, but I'm not sure if they ever tested the AGM-86B externally. Probably not, since they never had the software uploaded into the fleet, using the BUFFs as ALCM toters instead, but I don't know for sure.

I was a START escort at McConnell AFB when the Bones were still there, many amusing stories from that duty. The best one relates to the Kansas air museum over on the ANG side of the ramp. They had a B-52D sitting on the ramp with an AGM-69 inert round next to it, and the Russians always wanted to go over and make sure the jet and missile were still non-operational. Never seemed to care about the Titan II warhead section at the front gate though!
 
mkellytx said:
SOC said:
The START treaty issue you mention states that the Bone's bulkhead will remain locked in the "middle" position, which separates the
SOC said:
No way! I was a START escort as well! Small world around here. The deal was that the Bone was supposed to be an ALCM carrier (hence the moving bulkhead when the AGM-86B got a lot longer), so they made it START accountable, covering the hardpoints, etc, to satisfy the Soviets/Russians as it was still a nuclear delivery platform (mainly AGM-69s). This was basically the same logic as "no you morons, it's not an intercontinental strategic bomber, but fine, we'll rip out the refuelling probes anyway". The funny part is that none of the operational Bones ever even had the ALCM software loaded, so they'd just have been able to carry them around as dead weight. That Bone at Edwards? It's got an extra antenna or something to make it identifiable on overhead imagery as the accountable ACM test bird. They fitted it with the external hardpoints at one point for the ACM trials, but I'm not sure if they ever tested the AGM-86B externally. Probably not, since they never had the software uploaded into the fleet, using the BUFFs as ALCM toters instead, but I don't know for sure.

I was a START escort at McConnell AFB when the Bones were still there, many amusing stories from that duty. The best one relates to the Kansas air museum over on the ANG side of the ramp. They had a B-52D sitting on the ramp with an AGM-69 inert round next to it, and the Russians always wanted to go over and make sure the jet and missile were still non-operational. Never seemed to care about the Titan II warhead section at the front gate though!
forward bay into two equal halves. This was done to prevent moving the bulkhead to the "forward" position, extending the dimensions of the rear half of the forward bay to allow a CSRL to be fitted with AGM-86B cruise missiles. This means that the Bone is not counted as an ALCM carrier under START. Cutting holes in the bulkhead to feed new pipes or wiring shouldn't be an issue provided the bulkhead isn't moved or done away with completely.

Sean,

As a former START escort I can confirm the Russians verified that the bulkhead remained in the middle position. They also verified the external hard points where covered over in a "process equivalent to welding". The bulkhead is still movable, there are just no weapons qualified on the Bone that require the forward position, and there's no way, barring major changes you could put ALCM's on them (the only Bone that could is rotting away on the Edwards south base ramp). All this to say, in 6 years (3 maintenance, 3 test) working on/around the bone I never saw one moved even for maintenance purposes. And of course, START is expired, even though we still abide by it IIRC.

I've spent some time in class a while ago with some of the laser folks looking to use the Bone for their test. They've taken the bulkhead issue into account and have a plan. It's been a while so I forget exactly what it is, but you could either build new using the hard points in the bay or modify.

Cheers

It is posts like these that remind me as an amateur aviation and military technology enthusiast how amazing the community of Secret Projects is, just happy to be here learning as little each day. Thanks gentlemen!!
 
It is posts like these that remind me as an amateur aviation and military technology enthusiast how amazing the community of Secret Projects is, just happy to be here learning as little each day. Thanks gentlemen!!

Hear, hear! :D

I love the details!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SOC said:
No way! I was a START escort as well! Small world around here. The deal was that the Bone was supposed to be an ALCM carrier (hence the moving bulkhead when the AGM-86B got a lot longer), so they made it START accountable, covering the hardpoints, etc, to satisfy the Soviets/Russians as it was still a nuclear delivery platform (mainly AGM-69s). This was basically the same logic as "no you morons, it's not an intercontinental strategic bomber, but fine, we'll rip out the refuelling probes anyway". The funny part is that none of the operational Bones ever even had the ALCM software loaded, so they'd just have been able to carry them around as dead weight. That Bone at Edwards? It's got an extra antenna or something to make it identifiable on overhead imagery as the accountable ACM test bird. They fitted it with the external hardpoints at one point for the ACM trials, but I'm not sure if they ever tested the AGM-86B externally. Probably not, since they never had the software uploaded into the fleet, using the BUFFs as ALCM toters instead, but I don't know for sure.

I was a START escort at McConnell AFB when the Bones were still there, many amusing stories from that duty. The best one relates to the Kansas air museum over on the ANG side of the ramp. They had a B-52D sitting on the ramp with an AGM-69 inert round next to it, and the Russians always wanted to go over and make sure the jet and missile were still non-operational. Never seemed to care about the Titan II warhead section at the front gate though!

No kidding, small world, I'm sure you loved the treaty way of measuring the door length. I was down at Dyess when we got the last of your old jets. It's more that just SW, all kinds of avionics boxes also. We still had some of the short bay tanks laying around as late as 2005, but since they weren't going to be used again, we just let them rot away. Interesting thing with the hard point used for the Sniper pod is that the Russians had to OK the mod since the pylons and hard points are START items. We even used the ALCM test bird to do the fit checks and stuff.

The ALCM bird was 84-0049, it was also the Block F test bird, which is also why it is retired. IIRC the blade antenna was for telemetry, they put them on 69 and 75 when they became the new test birds. Another interesting tidbit about 49 was that Boeing actually took one of the wings off and put it back on. After that the aircrew really didn't like the bird that much.

My favorite memory was how the Russians always managed to get their inspections to coincide with the "Taste of Abilene", the military appreciation dinner put on by the city and catered by Joe Allen's BBQ. Of course Joe Allen's is pretty good. All of our plane's on a stick were on the drive in from the front gate, so we didn't get to see that kind of stuff.
 
Some Long Range Strike News from the Air Force Association (three stories)

The Debate over Long Range Strike: There’s a "lively debate" at the Pentagon in defining the Air Force's next long-range strike platform, Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements, said Thursday. Enemies have studied US tactics and are burying their most valued assets deeply, far from coastlines, and with multiple protections, Breedlove told attendees of an Air Force Association-sponsored Air Force Breakfast Series presentation in Arlington, Va. He said the question driving the debate is: "How much of our nation’s wealth are we willing to put against those targets, which our opponent is making very, very expensive" to hit? Plus, there is the issue of disclosure, since announcing weapons decisions in detail could "telegraph" to opponents what targets the US has effectively ceded to the enemy as too tough, he said. Breedlove said the Air Force "still believes," that "it is a core requirement of our nation to be able to hold targets around the world at risk."

Don’t Say 'Bomber': The term "next generation bomber" is "dead" in the halls of the Defense Department and Air Force, Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, top official on the Air Staff for operations, plans, and requirements, said Thursday. Speaking at an Air Force Association-sponsored Air Force Breakfast Series presentation in Arlington, Va., Breedlove said the new long range strike aircraft now being mulled will be smaller than the NGB would have been—NGB was to have had a payload of 27,000 pounds—and will lack the ability to penetrate the toughest enemy air defenses alone. However, he said, it will be stealthy and long-legged enough to do so as the "utility infielder" among a family of weapons. Breedlove said that, for the first time, requirements for a major combat aircraft are not following the traditional, bottom-up route through Air Combat Command, but are trickling down from the highest levels of the Pentagon.

A Slimmer MOP: The Air Force’s massive ordnance penetrator, or MOP, is a good first step at being able to destroy deeply buried targets beyond the reach of other bunker busters, says Lt. Gen. Phillip Breedlove, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements. However, the MOP—a massive weapon of 15 tons—must be succeeded soon by weapons offering the same effect, but in a much smaller package, he told attendees at Thursday's Air Force Association-sponsored Air Force Breakfast Series presentation in Arlington, Va. A next-generation penetrator munition, to be based on the hard target void-sensing fuze, should be "about a third" of the size of the MOP, so that "it can be carried in an aircraft we can afford to build," said Breedlove. He encouraged industry contractors to get cracking on the future weapon, which will equip the Air Force's next long-range strike aircraft.
 
SOC said:
The START treaty issue you mention states that the Bone's bulkhead will remain locked in the "middle" position, which separates the forward bay into two equal halves. This was done to prevent moving the bulkhead to the "forward" position, extending the dimensions of the rear half of the forward bay to allow a CSRL to be fitted with AGM-86B cruise missiles. This means that the Bone is not counted as an ALCM carrier under START. Cutting holes in the bulkhead to feed new pipes or wiring shouldn't be an issue provided the bulkhead isn't moved or done away with completely.

I believe this is the bulkhead you are talking about and it looks to me that running cables or plumbing through it wouldn't be that much of a problem.

And, just for grins, I'm posting the art that was on that bird.
 

Attachments

  • Bomb Bay 1a.jpg
    Bomb Bay 1a.jpg
    856.6 KB · Views: 343
  • Bomb Bay 2.jpg
    Bomb Bay 2.jpg
    919.1 KB · Views: 282
  • Home Improvement Art.jpg
    Home Improvement Art.jpg
    773.1 KB · Views: 296
bobbymike said:
From the Air Force Association

B-1B to be 1st-Gen ISR/Strike Platform: The Air Force intends to put its concept for a future long-range intelligence-reconnaissance-surveillance/strike platform to the test with modifications to the B-1B bomber. "That is what is envisioned for the future arsenal of the Air Force: an aircraft that includes ISR, directed energy, and network attack," explained Col. Charles Sherwin, 427th Aircraft Sustainment Group commander at Tinker AFB, Okla. He added that "all" of these capabilities "are being integrated or demonstrated” on the B-1B in the immediate future. Under the electric laser on a large aircraft initiative, the service plans to install a directed energy weapon on the B-1. "In effect," said Sherwin, "uniting this capability" with the Sniper targeting pod already on the bomber will make the B-1 "a first- generation" long-range ISR/strike aircraft. (Tinker report by Brandice J. Armstrong)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like the Air Force is reading Dale Brown novels ;)

The future of the B1 is certainly under discussion however the following seems to contradict predictions of a "B1-deathstar"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100628/us_time/08599200002000
 
How does that contradict the "b-1 dealthstar?" The program for a directed energy weapon to be fitted into the b-1 is not a program to upgrade the b-1 fleet as a whole. It is used for future applications on other platforms, notably next generation bomber.
 
SOC said:
The START treaty issue you mention states that the Bone's bulkhead will remain locked in the "middle" position, which separates the forward bay into two equal halves. This was done to prevent moving the bulkhead to the "forward" position, extending the dimensions of the rear half of the forward bay to allow a CSRL to be fitted with AGM-86B cruise missiles. This means that the Bone is not counted as an ALCM carrier under START. Cutting holes in the bulkhead to feed new pipes or wiring shouldn't be an issue provided the bulkhead isn't moved or done away with completely.

Hey SOC,

You moved my posting to the thread with the nuclear discussion. My post belongs in this thread as it was in response to this comment posted by you.

Edit: Thank you for moving it back.
Mike
 
The Artist said:
SOC said:
The START treaty issue you mention states that the Bone's bulkhead will remain locked in the "middle" position, which separates the forward bay into two equal halves. This was done to prevent moving the bulkhead to the "forward" position, extending the dimensions of the rear half of the forward bay to allow a CSRL to be fitted with AGM-86B cruise missiles. This means that the Bone is not counted as an ALCM carrier under START. Cutting holes in the bulkhead to feed new pipes or wiring shouldn't be an issue provided the bulkhead isn't moved or done away with completely.

Hey SOC,

You moved my posting to the thread with the nuclear discussion. My post belongs in this thread as it was in response to this comment posted by you.

Mike

Same for my post. However different my views may be from those of the mods here, I find it offensive that my comments should now be labeled as "random crap", especially since I was not restricting my views to nuclear power only.
 
Hold up, I didn't move anything. I'm not the only person who can moderate this section, I'm just the "extra" guy in here. Overscan or one of the other site admins probably moved whatever it was.
 
Who can identify the model on the left (the flying wing with the shuttle on top)?
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    961.6 KB · Views: 625
SOC said:
Hold up, I didn't move anything. I'm not the only person who can moderate this section, I'm just the "extra" guy in here. Overscan or one of the other site admins probably moved whatever it was.

Sorry.

With you listed as the moderator for this category, you became the most likely person to be addressed with the comment.
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
looks more like a cruise missile than a shuttle to me ???

I haven't seen many cruise missiles with strap-on fuel tanks
 
quellish said:
saintkatanalegacy said:
looks more like a cruise missile than a shuttle to me ???

I haven't seen many cruise missiles with strap-on fuel tanks

Kh-55SM! ;D
 
Part of the Space Operations Vehicle studies. A lot of studies. It means not exactly the bomber, but much likely universal space system, proposed for the specific tasks in various versions. Another iteration:

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/spacefighters1b.files/SLI3.jpg
 
Matej said:
Part of the Space Operations Vehicle studies. A lot of studies. It means not exactly the bomber, but much likely universal space system, proposed for the specific tasks in various versions. Another iteration:

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/spacefighters1b.files/SLI3.jpg

Impressive. Yet part of me is reminded of this humorous French saying: "Why make it simple if you can complicate it?"
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom