It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

West Texas Spanloader

page: 19
16
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Northernhollow

Patience Grasshopper.




posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
You tease so well



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
USAF Hunter-Killer (ISR/Strike) package to be RQ-180 and LRS-B?

LRS-B Not An ISR Platform


He later told reporters that adding such a mission would have resulted in requirements creep that would likely have delayed the bomber and raised its cost.

edit on 19-2-2015 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD

Family of systems brother.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

What's funny to me is how much technology has advanced, but how little has changed in terms of performance (relatively speaking). In 1988, the BMW M5 was the fastest sedan ever built, a technological marvel that made 280hp and could do 0-60 in 6 seconds. At the same time, a base 911 turbo made 210 HP and was one of the best handling cars around. At the time though, these cars were both maintenance-intemsive nightmares that cost a then-staggering 40-50k apiece.

Fast forward to 2015, and a Honda Accord V6 is faster and probably handles better than that M5, for less than $35k in 2015 dollars, and a Subaru BRZ will equal if not beat that old 911 for $25k. And both cars will run well past 150k with basic oil changes, etc!

Now look at the USAF and their plans in 1988. We had the B-2, a long-endurance low-observable technological marvel that shattered both expectations and maintenance budgets. And that B-2 was going to be receiving its targeting info from a HALE craft (aars/quartz) that was even more spectacularly advanced (and it made the B-2 look as cheap as a Honda!, if it ever flew!).

Now fast forward to 2015 and what do we have? A long-emdurance low-observable technological marvel of a bomber, and an even more advanced HALE platform guiding it, only this time the tech is proven enough that we can actually get these things in meaningful quantities. Funny how that worked out...

Both the B-2 and the AARS pushed the envelope past what was necessary even today, like their road going Teutonic counterparts in 1988. Now, technology has matured and the 2015 analogues to these once far-out craft seem almost mundane until you remember just how much they can do. Its just fascinating to me how much and yet how little actually changes.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: aholic

Its just fascinating to me how much and yet how little actually changes.


As far as we know...........



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

It's also that the private sector moves much quicker than defense. DARPA, DoD etc might be able to research more exotic technologies than the corporate world but when it comes to implementation the private sector will always be faster to get something off the drawing board, even if it's not finished per se. Profits and consumer competition drive this. Where as budgets and congressional law slow down defense. You'd be surprised that the phone in your pocket has more computing power and network interconnectivity than any ground soldier anywhere in the world. This is now only starting to change.

Aircraft development is amongst the most expensive industries on the planet. Commercial aviation hasn't changed much since 1988 either, no? This is why the Pentagon got so yippie over sensor-fusion, they can essentially put many of the technologies from your smart phone into an 1990's airplane and call it a major upgrade. That's the current revolution we are in right now, the big stuff will come in the next one.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TAGBOARD
My second revision of planform estimates of the Long-Range Strike-B finalists, based on several sources of information including photographs, second hand stories, patents, RCS design, aerodynamics, lessons learned, conops, released studies, stability and control and A-12 background:

Sketch of Both LRS-B Finalists (Rev B)


I pretty much agree on all your estimates, but i wouldn't be so sure about the ARES dna in the Northrop bird.

Just for the fun of it (and due to a boring evening) i made up a render of what i think Boeing's proposal MIGHT look like. Added a MOP just for giving an idea of the dimensions.

A sorta of "A-12 meets B-2" kind of a situation...



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

That looks really great! (I hope you don't get any knocks on your door later.)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

Umm, your lofting skills are outstanding. Those of which you'd likely get by cutting your teeth in the advanced design department of a large defense contractor. ; )

Regarding the Northrop LRS-B candidate, the ARES portions makes total sense to me aerodynamically. As Bill Sweetman implies, the "cranked kite" design works well in the early vortex lattice stages of arranging the aerodynamic center (or neutral point with a horizontal stabilizer), with the center of mass. The canard addition also makes sense to trim higher total body lift coefficient at takeoff, on a full useful load (payload + fuel). The rule of thumb is CL = 0.6 for no horizontal and CL = 1.2+ with one - double the lifting capacity at the same dynamic pressure. You'll need more thrust because you be higher on the drag polar, but that is not a long pole for these engines. The temporary canard is a little thing that makes a big difference.

From a VLO perspective, I don't know what to do with the canards whether they're pulled into the body OML somehow, or just ejected. Both are messy in an area where RCS is key - at the leading edge. So, I'd imagine those complications add cost and time to a program that is intended to be reliably fielded soon and on budget. A difficult decision that will be interesting to hear about when it's revealed.

I know this is a big ask, but could you gin up a loft of the Northrop bird as you see it?
edit on 21-2-2015 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

lovely.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD


Umm, your lofting skills are outstanding. Those of which you'd likely get by cutting your teeth in the advanced design department of a large defense contractor. ; )

Oh, you're too kind, i'm nothing of the sort.


From a VLO perspective, I don't know what to do with the canards whether they're pulled into the body OML somehow, or just ejected. Both are messy in an area where RCS is key - at the leading edge. So, I'd imagine those complications add cost and time to a program that is intended to be reliably fielded soon and on budget. A difficult decision that will be interesting to hear about when it's revealed.

I think the guys at NG came up with a broader notion of "survivability" than anyone had thought of, so the retractable canards choice could have been made to improve STOL performances from short/improvised airfields.
But i'm pretty sure a system like that adds weight and complexity, and in a fixed price competition such a thing would be like shooting yourself in the foot before running a marathon.


I know this is a big ask, but could you gin up a loft of the Northrop bird as you see it?



With retractable canards extended.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: cmdrkeenkid


That looks really great! (I hope you don't get any knocks on your door later.)


Day 1: no knocks at the door yet


Thanks



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

Excellent! I can't express how appreciative I am of your effort in catching some details in both lofts. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I can tell you first hand how underwhelmed I have been with the little amount interest in facts-based speculation supported by engineering analysis, that exists on the internet aircraft forums. Your posts have been among only a handful of exceptions.

This is my best day on ATS forum to date - and that's over one decade as of yesterday.
edit on 22-2-2015 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD

No problem


Glad i could make a good day for you, but i'm sure the best day will definitely be when these birds get out of the black/grey world.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

Boeing doesn't have a proposal. They're partnered with Lockheed, who is the lead.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: TAGBOARD

Family of systems brother.


Right!

You don't need to put everything for the various missions on the same airframe.

You do need to put them on the same application-level operating system and protocol stack.

Software is eating the world.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TAGBOARD

Hmm, a thought. Doesn't it look like those thingies sticking out on the wings might really want to fold up?
And what else is a short take off "air-field" for the canard?

And Navy oldtimers haven't quite lost that loving feeling for Grumman..



edit on 22-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


Software is eating the world.

True 'that!



And Navy oldtimers haven't quite lost that loving feeling for Grumman..

And I'm an old Grummanite my self. I'm tearing up right now,
.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


They're partnered with Lockheed, who is the lead.

....or was it Lockheed that partnered with Boeing. My design buddies tell me the physical airframe is of Boeing inception.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join