US Next Generation Bomber Studies

Well if the iMissiles are electric blue or pink, at least the bad guys will be in for a good laugh on their last breath!!!

Click to expand...

Dude, the electric blue/pink iMac was a decade ago... ;D

Pink iMissiles... OK, yeah, I had a good laugh at that one!

Click to expand...

Do you also laugh when you see an aircraft armed with training rounds, say an F-22 with orange GBU-39s? :

How 'bout a shop vac, "iSuck".

Click to expand...

I appreciate a the good jokes but not the sarcasm if there was any. It very easy for tech geeks to feel they know better than a company that these days seams to design and market products for the most average of Joes. An approach fundamentally prone to jokes. You can basically put "i" in front of everything or refer to the shinny girly aspect of things or the fact that its products seam simple to the point of lacking features needed by the average user here.

Apple products by no means seams have the military or utility feel needed to end up on Batman's belt or be used by Skynet. One can almost joke that even the energy of the Cube will not turn an Apple products into a Transformer because the sheer lack of features.

The reality if quite different though.
The military has been using iPods in Afghanistan for many years. The last couple of years saw an explosion of adoption of iPod Touches and iPhones in units in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where they provide critics services like on the fly voice translation, sniper ballistics calculation and others.

In fact contrary to the Marketing. It is not the DROID that has military feature but the iPhone. For if you ignore the looks and the marketing, Apple offers products that are the most reliable and simple to use of all computer makers. They offer solid design, little or no moving parts, and transcend cultures trough the of things like english physical keyboard.

In a couple of days, Apple will introduce the iPad, a device infinitely suited to military applications. From a replacement to portable diagnostic units for jets like the Raptor, to personal consoles of field commanders, to control pads for UAVs. e.t.c.

Two years ago, Apple bough a computer chip company names PA Semi. They were building military chips at the time of the acquisition. Low powered chips used in missiles. Initially the military jumped on the possibility of Apple stopping the production of those components, but Apple promised to fulfill all orders to date. Now Apple has produced its first custom silicon in a long time, called the A4 - the main processor in the iPad. At the same time the military finds itself using ever more Apple products on the field. Frack, even the Taliban are using iPhone for military purposes these days.

The new Apple ecosystem of products is widely adhering to standards and being platforms by software and hardware point of view are very military in their fundamentals. The US army saves a ton of money on R&D and procurement costs utilizing "off the shelf" equipment like that.

let me guess... their interface will be so revolutionary that they'll replace the joystick and every control with a circular touch pad

Click to expand...

Just because you might lack some imagination to see the possibilities does not mean they do not exist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ejh--_56ic

Back to the Next Generation Bomber Studies, if anyone has not thought until now that Apple will not be a subcontractor in one way or another for this project needs to look look again.
B)

lantinian said:

In a couple of days, Apple will introduce the iPad, a device infinitely suited to military applications. From a replacement to portable diagnostic units for jets like the Raptor, to personal consoles of field commanders, to control pads for UAVs. e.t.c.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... Apple announced without explanation yesterday that the promised firm delivery dates for pre-orders for the iPad placed after March 27 will not be met. Now, all they need to do is say they'll cost 50% more and they'll be a fully credible defense contractor! ;D

Apple announced without explanation yesterday that the promised firm delivery dates for pre-orders for the iPad placed after March 27 will not be met. Now, all they need to do is say they'll cost 50% more and they'll be a fully credible defense contractor!

Click to expand...

The reason for that could be many and not be even with Apple. If you look at the price of their major product over the last two years, you will actually see a steady decrease. They are actually among the few contractors who delivers products under budget, not the other way around.

lantinian said:

Apple announced without explanation yesterday that the promised firm delivery dates for pre-orders for the iPad placed after March 27 will not be met. Now, all they need to do is say they'll cost 50% more and they'll be a fully credible defense contractor!

Click to expand...

The reason for that could be many and not be even with Apple. If you look at the price of their major product over the last two years, you will actually see a steady decrease. They are actually among the few contractors who delivers products under budget, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

This sounds like an Apple fan related discussion that has nothing to do with next generation bombers.

sublight said:

lantinian said:

Apple announced without explanation yesterday that the promised firm delivery dates for pre-orders for the iPad placed after March 27 will not be met. Now, all they need to do is say they'll cost 50% more and they'll be a fully credible defense contractor!

Click to expand...

The reason for that could be many and not be even with Apple. If you look at the price of their major product over the last two years, you will actually see a steady decrease. They are actually among the few contractors who delivers products under budget, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

This sounds like an Apple fan related discussion that has nothing to do with next generation bombers.

Click to expand...

I was making a joke about Apple and the way of defense.

From Insidedefene.com

Schwartz: New Bomber Requirements Scaled Back

DefenseAlert, March 30, 2010 -- The Air Force's top officer today said the U.S. military's next-generation bomber will not be a "lone wolf" aircraft that operates without escort, noting that the requirements now being considered by the Defense Department for a new long-range strike capability are less ambitious than previous Pentagon plans for a future bomber.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm thinking a large BWB bomber carrying hundreds of X-51's

bobbymike said:

I'm thinking a large BWB bomber carrying hundreds of X-51's

Click to expand...

Nice. I like that.....

A large missileer concept is an cold war era concept and does not meet the variety of mixed threats of potential enemies.

runnin out of money? Good thing they're buying JSF'S :

It might have something to do with the new air power doctrine of persistence and ‘occupation’ of air space rather than limited sorties with infrequent penetrations. Just in case air force specifications are derived by doctrine rather than enthusiastic musings…

A bit more info on the new bomber concept:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4559485&c=AME&s=AIR

DoD: Next 'Bomber' May Be a Family of Systems
By JOHN T. BENNETT

Published: 29 Mar 2010 16:22 Print | Email

The U.S. Defense Department is examining how to fit "complementary" tools on the "family of systems" that would replace a long-range bomber concept terminated last year, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter said March 29.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates in April 2009 canceled a years-long effort to establish requirements and a formal development program for a new long-range bomber. Gates felt the department needed to stop that work, which was led by the Air Force, and begin a new look at how the U.S. military could best fulfill all the missions envisioned for a new deep-penetrating bomber.

After months of examining, Pentagon officials in recent months have said they expect to replace the former long-range strike aircraft concept with a "family of systems," each designed to conduct specific kinds of missions. Speaking to an industry audience in Arlington, Va., Carter said it is likely that the platforms will be designed to do tasks deemed "complementary" to one another.

Then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley in the mid-2000s used terms like long-range strike and persistent ISR when describing the service's mission requirements for a new bomber aircraft. Carter used the same phrases in his National Aeronautics Association presentation and added two more to things the "family of systems" will do: "prompt global strike and electronic attack."

The former refers to a next-generation weapon that can be launched quickly to take out fleeting targets anywhere around the globe; the latter refers to offensive and defense missions like jamming enemy signals.

Although Carter said officials "are still thinking through" what the family of platforms will have to look like, he said some of them likely will be "dual-use."

For instance, an aircraft designed for electronic attack missions also could be armed with complimentary jamming equipment, he said. And a long-range strike aircraft could be fitted with sophisticated ISR sensors.

Some of the family's platforms, Carter said, will be "stand-off systems" while others would be "stand-in." And some will be "reusable" where others "could be expendable."

The Pentagon's senior acquisition, technology and logistics official also said that, as Pentagon officials decide how to move forward with the family of systems concept, they will factor in industrial base implications.

Officials "have to keep in mind," he said, "that if certain capabilities [within U.S. defense firms are] allowed to whither, it will be hard to replicate them."

Carter added that the Pentagon "has a special responsibility to segments of industry," and promised DoD officials that, as part of the family of systems program, the department "will be looking at all the contributions each segment can make."

So basically they are now looking into making more than one of all the options the industry has suggested so far. The ones that represent a "new long-range bomber" or more expensive approaches are no even considered, in favor of less versatile but complementary systems that together offer more capability?

Abraham Gubler - After reading the Defense News piece why does it sound like FCS "in the air"

donnage99 - just because something was a "cold war concept" does not immediately invalidate the idea. Seeing that the US has developed 60 + years of weapon systems during the cold war can't that be said of almost anything that is truly not "brand new"? Artillery, tanks, aircraft carriers, ICBM's, SLBM's, SSBN's, reconnaissance satellites, nuclear weapons oh those old "cold war" concepts.

Besides a large BWB could have iterations that included advanced electronic and ISR capability as well as launch small stealthy UAV's all from outside SAM range and with possible stealthy escorts like the F-22 (See Schwartz's comment) You could even house defensive DEW systems or have a large anti-air carrier full of NCADE's, PAC 3's and AMRAAM's. I know it sounds like a Dale Brown novel :

2005 Prompt Global Strike presentation by COl Rick Patenaude:
http://proceedings.ndia.org/C488/patenaude.ppt

bobbymike said:

donnage99 - just because something was a "cold war concept" does not immediately invalidate the idea. Seeing that the US has developed 60 + years of weapon systems during the cold war can't that be said of almost anything that is truly not "brand new"? Artillery, tanks, aircraft carriers, ICBM's, SLBM's, SSBN's, reconnaissance satellites, nuclear weapons oh those old "cold war" concepts.

Besides a large BWB could have iterations that included advanced electronic and ISR capability as well as launch small stealthy UAV's all from outside SAM range and with possible stealthy escorts like the F-22 (See Schwartz's comment) You could even house defensive DEW systems or have a large anti-air carrier full of NCADE's, PAC 3's and AMRAAM's. I know it sounds like a Dale Brown novel :

Click to expand...

Bobbymike, I didn't mean just the time, but also where the concept of missileer comes from, and for what threat that the concept's vision is wrapped around. It isn't versatile.

A BWB as missileers is just wishful thinking. Missileer is a trade of capabilities to cost in comparison to a stand-in stealthy platform, and you want an all new and unproven platform to do the job?

donnage99 - I am interested in different concepts of operations that can provide increased firepower from limited platforms. Because as the cost of weapon systems spirals ever upward the US may end up with fewer and fewer platforms so I want the remaining platforms to hold more weapons. Another such idea I had was converting a Marine Corp Amphibious Assault Ship to a large deck missile carrier with hundreds of vertical cells to launch everything from Standard missiles to KEI to ATK's medium range global strike missile (offensively).

Not saying I'm realistic just partaking in "thought" experiments about future war scenarios like being massively outnumbered in the Taiwan Strait.

Precision Strike Winter Roundtable, 1 Feb 2007
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007psa_winter/wilcox.pdf

bobbymike said:

Not saying I'm realistic just partaking in "thought" experiments about future war scenarios like being massively outnumbered in the Taiwan Strait.

Click to expand...

OK, so your idea is for the sake of forum-discussion-fun, not a realistic view of the current issue. If that's the case, my point still holds ground. You're interested in platforms that deliver massive firepower as a way to save money. However, the BWB is an all new, unproven design. Yes, it will hold more missiles. However, will that really be "saving" anymore if we take into the cost of development of an all new design, instead of converting a common civillian platform (which also means cheap to maintain, since they share common components all over the world, no need to set up an exotic production line). Will 20 more missiles make up for that cost? The BWB missileer concept only makes sense after BWB has been adapted in civilian use.

This is not to consider the capabilities it would bring. Like I said, the concept isn't versatile. What if you need to take out a moving target in well defended area? You can't. What if after the missile left the platform, the scenario changes? "Oh, Lord!" A cruise missile is just a very limited capability in term of versatility. What if it's a time critical target, will the missile get there in time in comparison to a stand-in platform (hypersonic cruise missiles cost alot, so a question of whether the cost of shooting 20 of them + the supposedly cheap platfom that carry them will be the same as building an exotic stand-in platform with cheap weapons)? That's why decades later, missiles still do not replace aircraft as people of old have once thought.

donnage99 said:

bobbymike said:

Not saying I'm realistic just partaking in "thought" experiments about future war scenarios like being massively outnumbered in the Taiwan Strait.

Click to expand...

OK, so your idea is for the sake of forum-discussion-fun, not a realistic view of the current issue. If that's the case, my point still holds ground. You're interested in platforms that deliver massive firepower as a way to save money. However, the BWB is an all new, unproven design. Yes, it will hold more missiles. However, will that really be "saving" anymore if we take into the cost of development of an all new design, instead of converting a common civillian platform (which also means cheap to maintain, since they share common components all over the world, no need to set up an exotic production line). Will 20 more missiles make up for that cost? The BWB missileer concept only makes sense after BWB has been adapted in civilian use.

This is not to consider the capabilities it would bring. Like I said, the concept isn't versatile. What if you need to take out a moving target in well defended area? You can't. What if after the missile left the platform, the scenario changes? "Oh, Lord!" A cruise missile is just a very limited capability in term of versatility. What if it's a time critical target, will the missile get there in time in comparison to a stand-in platform (hypersonic cruise missiles cost alot, so a question of whether the cost of shooting 20 of them + the supposedly cheap platfom that carry them will be the same as building an exotic stand-in platform with cheap weapons)? That's why decades later, missiles still do not replace aircraft as people of old have once thought.

Click to expand...

It is more than "forum-discussion-fun" if that is your way to "dismiss" the idea. Actually I approach the process by assessing different concepts of operations using potential near/mid term technologies and then reevaluate feasibility and either further explore the concept or dismiss it as unworkable. A modern B H Liddell Hart if you will.

So using your methodology/theorizing you have completely invalidated the whole SSGN concept (an underwater missileer?) in addition to invalidating any "stand off smart weapon" technology. Also, I thought most of the modern iterations of land attack cruise missiles including JASSM, etc. had in flight re-targeting? DARPA and the DOD are working on the ability to re-target, in flight, hypersonic vehicles under the conventional prompt global strike program. A BWB bomber would not go it alone but would be assisted with various ISR packages constantly updating targeting information and enemy locations. It would be a systems of systems as General Schwartz is advocating for future long range strike.

While it would be a unique and probably expensive system I don't understand your "versatility" argument. It would be as versatile as any other bomber. The BWB is just another system that trades range, payload and survivability like every military system, it is not by any means a perfect system.

Also my thinking is that you would swarm the target with many smart weapons and leave your platforms are far from triple digit SAM range as possible. I am not advocating reducing the importance of manned platforms but the "steel on target" is a bomb or missile of some kind so why not carry a lot of them. I would much rather lose 19 of 20 missiles to hit an important strategic target than my missile launching platform. I'm also not advocating missiles replacing aircraft nor did I think I inferred I did.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

bobbymike said:

So using your methodology/theorizing you have completely invalidated the whole SSGN concept (an underwater missileer?) in addition to invalidating any "stand off smart weapon" technology.

Click to expand...

I think the fact that you suggested to have a newly unproven, and uncommon platform to fullfill a concept that at the heart is about cost makes the oxymoron not a realistic take on the current issue.
The reason we still have "stand off smart weapons" is because we don' have 2000 stealthy platforms flying around at any moment we want. Our stealth platforms just aren't enough to replace all legacy aircraft. We still have an enormous fleet of legacy aircraft, so we must figure out a way to make them combat competitive in denied access: stand-off smart weapons. And our current stealthy platforms are not guaranteed to be survivable in certain scenario neither. The same applies to SSGN. We simply do not have enough stealth platforms to swarm the enemy on the first day of war, so we must rely on a mixed force including SSGN. Secondly, stand-off weapons predate stealthy platforms. They are part of the doctrine that is not easily discarded. They navy wont just dump SSGN because Air Force introduces a stealth platform, no matter how magical it appears to be.

I think you completely missed my point. My point does not discard the whole concept of stand off weapons. What it does is that it discards building a stand-off platform delivering stand-off weapons at significant range away from the target, because it is going back to the past to build a future platform with the inherent compromises of past capabilities, which brings us to your next point.

Also, I thought most of the modern iterations of land attack cruise missiles including JASSM, etc. had in flight re-targeting? DARPA and the DOD are working on the ability to re-target, in flight, hypersonic vehicles under the conventional prompt global strike program. A BWB bomber would not go it alone but would be assisted with various ISR packages constantly updating targeting information and enemy locations. It would be a systems of systems as General Schwartz is advocating for future long range strike.

Click to expand...

Re-targeting, you say? Using what? Oh, crap! I forgot! We don't have any stealthy IRS platform to update feedbacks on the target, and the IRS on our missileers don't really work since it's too far from the target.
And no, losing 20 missiles are better than losing the platform itself, but I was never suggesting using non stealthy platform to be stand-in, didn't I? Actually, I was asking whether the cost of 20 hypersonic cruise missiles to hit critical target adds up with the cost of the platform itself would be any more cost effective than a stand-in exotic platform (that is survivable if I have to spell it out for you).

Suggesting and unproven and uncommon? Like the B-1, B-2, the first spy sats, the first GPS sats, the first ICBM's, SLBM's. Is not the entire history of weapon system development from the first "sharpened stick" to the SSBN at one point unproven and uncommon.

Once again I repeat I am not suggesting some miracle stand alone system but one that would work with stealthy ISR platforms (maybe even launch them), etc.

Round and round we go

bobbymike said:

Suggesting and unproven and uncommon? Like the B-1, B-2, the first spy sats, the first GPS sats, the first ICBM's, SLBM's. Is not the entire history of weapon system development from the first "sharpened stick" to the SSBN at one point unproven and uncommon.

Click to expand...

Round and round we go because you have no idea what I'm talking about. And I doubt you know what you talking about neither, since you just gave an irrelevant response. Irrelevant because the example of b-1, b-2, and so forth have nothing to do with the concept you are suggesting. The b-1, b-2, are all breakin' ground in capabilities during its time, thus taking the risk was logical and unavoidable. However, as you have failed to understand, I'll say it again, the missileer concept is alternate that is a less capable concept than an ultra stealth stand-in platform. And the reason we would ever pick on a less capable concept is to reduce risk and cost, and you want to use an unproven and uncommon platform? That defeats its purpose.

And yes, it's seem very realistically economic to build 2 platforms: the missileer and the stealthy IRS platform to support it instead of sticking an internal bomb bay and delivery system into the IRS platform itself. This is the very answer to the question "How are we gonna waste tax dollars?"

And if you feel like I'm being rude, I apologize. But exactly as you have said, this is going round and round. And I feel a little frustrated that you failed to see the point I'm making.

SCHWARTZ SCALES BACK REQUIREMENTS FOR NEXT-GENERATION BOMBER

The Air Force’s top officer this week said the U.S. military’s next-generation bomber will not be a “lone wolf” aircraft that operates without escort, noting that the requirements now being considered by the Defense Department for a new, long-range strike capability are less ambitious than previous Pentagon plans for a future bomber.

I know what point you are making I don't agree plain and simple. Hey don't take it personally

To handle multiplying missions without more people, the Air Force won’t be able to do all its assigned tasks as comprehensively as it once did, and will be aiming instead for simple sufficiency in areas where it’s been accustomed to dominance.

That was the assessment from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, in an interview shortly after the Fiscal 2011 defense budget was unveiled. The Air Force, Schwartz said, will remain fixed at 332,000 people, but with increasing demands on its manpower in remotely piloted aircraft, irregular warfare, and other emerging missions, it won’t have the money to pursue full-up capabilities as it always has.

Click to expand...

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/March%202010/WashingtonWatch.aspx

The reason I posted this is because of this part that frankly horrified me.

The new long-range strike system, postponed from 2018 to “the mid-2020s,” Schwartz said, won’t be survivable against the toughest air defenses, because the Air Force can’t afford to make it so.

Click to expand...

So, it's back to the elaborate SEAD scenarios of old then?

Appears so - but with what? there will not be enough F-35s / F-22s to complete the role, and then who is going up? any of the retired 4th generational airframes? with the stand off and escort jammer programmes all halted bar the Growler whos air frame numbers are limited.

Simple sufficiency to do a job is going to get a whole lot of airframes shot down and lives lost in any future sophisticated war scenario.

bobbymike said:

I know what point you are making I don't agree plain and simple. Hey don't take it personally

Click to expand...

What I find absurd about this is that you claimed to access the situation educatedly, but here you persisted in your opinion even when you no longer have any logical reasoning to back up that belief. That looks more like ego problem, than educated accessment to me.

As for the current news Ian33 has brought up, I wonder if Schwartz meant the stealthiness of the airframe in particular won't be survivable in the toughest air defenses or the system as a whole won't be.

http://www.navy.mi.th/nrdo/jane/dev_m/USFinally052006.pdf

An articleon B-2 replacement from Bill Sweetman.

Removed last two posts by the bobbymike and donnage99 because their relevance to the topic subject is zero. Gents, this is about the US Next Generation Bomber Studies. If you want to talk about the each others personal behavior, please use the PM, because nobody else is interested!

Ian33 said:

Appears so - but with what? there will not be enough F-35s / F-22s to complete the role, and then who is going up? any of the retired 4th generational airframes? with the stand off and escort jammer programmes all halted bar the Growler whos air frame numbers are limited.

Simple sufficiency to do a job is going to get a whole lot of airframes shot down and lives lost in any future sophisticated war scenario.

Click to expand...

A crazy concept just entered my mind, its relevance is debateable though: In a situation where opposing sides have to rely on sufficiency rather than dominance, the resultant is deterrence. In this case the deterrence would be of a conventional order, rather than a nuclear one. The possible limited destruction of limited resources is as much a deterrent as the assured total destruction of old.

I can imagine that the concepts for future platforms will need a lot of rethinking. Their function will not necessarily be to a attack a " plausible enemy" of supposedly equal military strength, they will also need the ability to provide dynamic engagements in lower intensity or asymmetric conflicts. The old days of the Cold War, where technological advance in itself was a weapon, are well gone.

The debate wether a " bomb-truck" or a highly stealthy penetrator is needed seems all too relevant.
Or could one consider parallel paths? Manned, rustic, rugged platforms for the " bomb truck" theatre supporting role, UCAV's for the penetrating ones? The decision making process is slow due to the lack of a decent strategical concept and the fluency of modern geostrategical reality. One would not want end up with the right weapon for the wrong war. It's a tricky pickle.

The new long-range strike system, postponed from 2018 to “the mid-2020s,” Schwartz said, won’t be survivable against the toughest air defenses, because the Air Force can’t afford to make it so.

Click to expand...

Brilliant! Sounds like a return to the Carter years, but worse.

Ian33 said:

The new long-range strike system, postponed from 2018 to “the mid-2020s,” Schwartz said, won’t be survivable against the toughest air defenses, because the Air Force can’t afford to make it so.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Then one can only wonder the reasons for developping a (probably sophisticated and expensive) long-range strike system/bomber; when it will almost certainly be shot down anyway unless it is used against a foe without a (very) tough air-defence. Perhaps for fly-over's against the Taliban or likes, to scare them away...

The postponed nature (till 2020's) is interesting because a while back, there was an engineer (propulsion) talking about the new highly economical engines being developed right now under certain programmes that would be great for the NGLRS / NGB efforts if they could delay the implementation of these until the engines were ready 'early 2020's'.

Seems like they hit the delay button to coincide with the engines after all is how I see it.

A Lockheed/Boeing Breakup Over Bomber?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ac2d29b86-157a-4228-bd0b-4b36850e0650

Trouble in paradise?

Lockheed 2005 Investor's Conference presentation:
http://www.space-library.com/0511LM_Investor%20Conf.pdf

Nothing much here, couple of standard graphics of FALCON, Walrus blimp, and the Morphing-Wing UCAV tossed in. Overall, kind of a "meh" presentation.

But.....

On PAGE 89, upper right-hand corner, in the block titled DESIGN & DEVELOP. There's a black and white graphic with three designs: a Mach 3.5 Blackbird-ish design, a Mach 2.5 delta wing, and at the top there's Persistor.

It vaguely reminds me of Barnes Wallis' swing-wing design from wayback.

Well it's a new one for me. But I've never heard of it. Anybody else? Anyone?

Yeah, the Persistor design, due to it's very high aspect ratio swing wing reminds me of the Swallow. Although the Swallow was tailless and this design has a butterfly tail. The other two designs I've seen elsewhere.

I should keep PDF's like this handy. There isn't anything like a presentation to put one to sleep. As I was paging through, I could almost hear the presenter speaking and my mind going numb as all of the latest corporate jargon is spewed forth to dull my senses. I was very happy when I made it to the slide tiled, "Conference Break." Ahhh, sweet relief. Oh, BTW, there is a couple of nice pics of the morphing wing design on page 102.

It's funny how you have these mundane sleep-inducing presentations like this one and buried in the middle of it all is some little nugget like Persistor to grab your attention.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,191.msg15703.html#msg15703
but Persistor and Mach 3.5 concepts weren't here
thanks, Moonbat!

Slightly enhanced image of the Persistor. A couple of remarks though:
- T've mirrored the starboard wing to make the port wing complete; however perhaps the outer half retracts in the inner half.
- There is no guarantee that the tips of the V-shape do not actually extend a little more beyond what is seen (the tips seem bluntly cut).

Am I correct in discerning a podded piggyback engine?