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.

 

Pictures Of Mystery Plane Over Wichita

page: 54
134
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Plasma is plasma is plasma. Even if it's just in the engines, it's going to shred that engine into tiny pieces


Huh? Plasma from a dielectric emitter is going to eat up an engine? Something made from superalloy steel which can usually survive 500 mph geese?

Sure, make some gouges out of expensive stealth composites. But when it hits hard conductive metal? Poof! Charge neutralized!

It has less energy density than lightning strikes.

Far, far hotter plasmas have problems with the steel walls in fusion tokomaks----it's the wall interaction disrupting the plasma which is the problem there. Steel vs plasma and steel wins.


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

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

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

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




posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

One of the problems with plasma systems is that they tend to shred things they come into contact with when the system loses integrity. Including things you'd think it shouldn't.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Not sure if any of this is interesting. Ways plasmas and engines make engine noise quieter. Ways plasmas can make engines more efficient at high altitude or in low pressure situations. Not even sure I got the links to work right but I think this stuff is interesting. Last link is a lockheed martin patent for a few years back.



arc.aiaa.org...



www.google.com...


Anybody know how to attach pdf's to a post? the more interesting stuff are in those.


edit on 22-2-2015 by BASSPLYR because: two of the links didn't work right although they were the most interesting.

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



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

They can do interesting things with plasma as long as you don't mind the side effects. Eventually we'll see it on commercial aircraft but not until it's matured a good bit more.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mbkennel

One of the problems with plasma systems is that they tend to shred things they come into contact with when the system loses integrity. Including things you'd think it shouldn't.


I do know when the aircraft envelope becomes unstable in ah some cases it can begin having this damned rhythmic buffeting/fluttering that causes really godawful induction into unprotected systems. Not having any of that is a big step towards a combat ready system, not that you can do it 100%, but you can sure reduce it.

Another issue is abrasion. It some cases, and generally when you are cranking to get the plasma density up there, if it comes into really close contact with surfaces instead of flowing across them with a real minimum of curl, it'll start abrading them away, the nice RAM sorts of soft/crunchy textures go first. But it'll abrade metal too, if it gets a chance.

Yet another problem is sort of the photo negative of what Zap's talking about, and I think it might be part of what he heard, and that's an issue where you get "dry" spots in the flow. You can get exposed surface if the plasma thins out, or if there's surface damage, or you can get it at really annoyingly bad times such as when you're doing some rad maneuvering at speed and get sling-out, wherein the airflow goes weird when you're in a screwy aspect ratio at g. At such times, it can be really attention-getting to have random parts of your airframe cease being slippery and start grabbing air, and then you can get into a sort of non-recoverable tumble which just randomly exposes even more bits you'd rather not and bob's your uncle. Or if you're supersonic in a plane that might not otherwise want to be and start getting random plasma voiding, it can let the air grab chunks of your skin and peel them off, which as you might imagine can be somewhat surprising and can just ruin your entire day.

So there is a failure mode in your plasma stream that DOES result in strips being torn off your otherwise nice intact craft but it's due to the plasma failing in a streak down the wing or whatnot.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Inside the engine you can get an effect like what happened to the F-35 at Eglin. Your engine goes from almost no friction whatsoever, to friction, and it flexes. It flexes to the point where the turbine bites into the insulation and destroys the engine.
edit on 2/22/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bedlam

Inside the engine you can get an effect like what happened to the F-35 at Eglin. Your engine goes from almost no friction whatsoever, to friction, and it flexes. It fleeces to the point where the turbine bites into the insulation and destroys the engine.


Ah. I can see that, but the MHD engines got away with it. Although maybe they avoided that failure mode accidentally.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I can see them getting away with it. I still would be twitchy with it in the engine. Higher time engines are at slightly less risk because they've burned a channel in the insulation, but if it flexes enough it'll still dig in.

The F-35 suffered a flex like that on an unburned in engine. The turbine blades suffered a temperature spike higher than their design limits for less than a second, and three weeks later under the stress of full power shattered and blew a hole in the aft fuselage.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Lol... Just the engines. They're made by Williams International, which is out in Commerce Township.

And don't forget, through WWII and most of the Cold War, Detroit was known as "The Arsenal of Democracy." Lots of munitions, but especially the main tank factories, were in Detroit. They still do some pretty cool stuff over at the Detroit Arsenal though.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well everything is a challenge at first and I'm sure using plasma inside engines is one of those things. Although I have a strong suspicion they are farther along with this tech being reliable enough to be fielded in some aircraft than we are aware of.

The advantages it can give are pretty enticing.

Aircraft that can fly more efficiently at high altitude or thinner atmospheres. That would be good for everything from a RQ-180 to a Green lady to F-22's to, well anything. Higher is usually better and safer when dealing with enemies.

Engines that are more efficient and can loiter longer, which would be great for all sorts of drones, aircraft doing CAS etc...

It would extend the range of any aircraft using this tech in the engines so that we can stage from further distances to a war zone and keep our aircraft better protected.

We can make engine exhaust noise much quieter for reducing it's sound footprint in the environment.

It would be too good of a thing to pass up figuring out how to use it safely and reliably. I say they are further along wit this sort of stuff then we are lead to believe.

How does plasma deal with new skins that utilize or induce plasmonic phenomena? I wonder what things like meta materials skins can do to keep the plasma sheath free of "Voids" when the whole aircraft's surface is basically one giant plasmonics effect.

I know they are further along in this stuff than people think. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing some of it demonstrated once.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

I respect detroit for what it was. But to me it's just strange to keep a facility like that so close to detroit. It would be like keeping a munitions factory in compton because it USED to be a lovely area back in 1942. It's just strange to me.

This clip is pretty much what I picture happening.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Ah, that makes sense. Hmm, I guess plasma physics modeling isn't as dead end a career as I imagined. Then again, the experience from fusion research isn't that encouraging---every scale-up showed Yet Another Damn Plasma Instability not previously predicted.

I guess that little instability problem isn't quite the instant hamburger "time rate gradient" stuff but it does sound gastrically incompatible.

edit on 23-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

I respect detroit for what it was. But to me it's just strange to keep a facility like that so close to detroit. It would be like keeping a munitions factory in compton because it USED to be a lovely area back in 1942.


"near != in". NG Torrance and SpaceX are pretty near Compton too.

Anyway, I think gangs would actually respect a hard-core weapons plant.

I don't think that 'plasmonic metamaterials' have that much in common with actual fluid plasmas of truly free electrons & ions.

The 'plasmonic' part refers to quantization (QM behavior) of collective electrostatic oscillations of the conduction electrons vs bound ions in the material.

I think composite stuff would get its pretty little nanostructures gouged out by aggressive plasma fluctuations.
edit on 23-2-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Well they got something worked out. I know that. Not sure what but it's pretty interesting to see.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

I think composite stuff would get its pretty little nanostructures gouged out by aggressive plasma fluctuations.


It makes pretty patterns when it #s up.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
There have been a number of hints on this forum about what class of aircraft seems to be missing from recent speculation - VLO Electronic Attack. I came across this editorial published yesterday from Bill Sweetman speculating on the UCLASS delay, and curious lack of lobbying/protests from LM and NG. Might he be on to something....possibly seen over Wichita?


In October 2010, Maj. Gen. Dave Scott, head of the Air Force’s operational requirements directorate, gave a briefing that disclosed the service’s plans for a long-range strike family of systems (LRS-FoS)—plans that then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates approved a few months later.

Three family members are real today: LRSB, the Long-Range Standoff cruise missile and a “penetrating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance” (P-ISR) vehicle, which is Northrop Grumman’s secret RQ-180. (A fourth, Conventional Prompt Global Strike, was dropped like a bad habit as soon as the Pentagon’s exit door closed behind its leading advocate, and was replaced by the Minuteman follow-on.)

That leaves one: Penetrating Airborne Electronic Attack (P-AEA). In the LRS-FoS plan, RQ-180 would find targets for LRSB and the P-AEA would suppress defenses. Together, they fill the capabilities gap between the cost-constrained LRSB and the Battlestar-Galactica Next-Generation Bomber (NGB) that Gates canceled in 2009.


Opinion: Looking For Answers To The Navy’s Uclass Mystery



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Northernhollow

From what I could gather from the article you linked is that he says that one of the family members in the LRS-B, would be the RQ-180 to find the targets for the LRS-B and a P-AEA to go in and suppress the enemy defenses and make a attack corridor. I think he's saying that he believes the P-AEA is called the RAQ-25 and that Boeing was the one who won the contract.

He speculates that the Navy's UCLASS has been delayed because the AF and the NAVY joined up on the P-AEA and they are making a carrier version of it, which will be the navy UCLASS. The UCLASS proposal from Boeing is called the Phantom Ray. In the article he says that he believes the Boeing aircraft was just recently demonstrated.

It's a pretty interesting article. I wonder if the Texas mystery aircraft is a Boeing made P-AEA called the RAQ-25 and what will also become the new navy UCLASS? It sorta looks like what they say the Boeing Phantom Ray would look like. Interesting if true that the Navy and the Air Force did a joint program on this. I always got the feeling that if the Air Force had a new dedicated EW platform they would be real tight lipped about it and and would probably want it all to themselves and not have a joint program with the navy.

As for what the article is talking about. It's not talking about the wichita bird.

But maybe, (total, total speculation on my part here) texas? Which is also going to be the new UCLASS too. I dunno, but interesting article anyways.
edit on 1-3-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

No, the UCLASS had been designated the RAQ-25. A P-AEA platform is pure speculation on his part, with no known designation.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

yeah I didn't think the AF and the NAVY would get together on a P-AEA. IF the Air Force had/has a dedicated EW platform hidden in their new budget they would probably want to keep it all to themselves and not share at all with the Navy if possible. I sure wouldn't share any of that if I were the Air Force. But we do need a dedicated P-AEA to join in on the LRS-B family or just in general. That part makes sense to me.

After thinking about it I don't think texas has anything to do with either UCLASS or P-AEA. The texas plane had been around for a while I think was mentioned in one of the threads.

Is the texas bird going to be revealed anytime soon.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

yeah I didn't think the AF and the NAVY would get together on a P-AEA. IF the Air Force had/has a dedicated EW platform hidden in their new budget they would probably want to keep it all to themselves and not share at all with the Navy if possible. I sure wouldn't share any of that if I were the Air Force. But we do need a dedicated P-AEA to join in on the LRS-B family or just in general. That part makes sense to me.


I gotta think the Air Force would never allow the Navy to take over the entire EW mission. Something better must have been out there when the EF-111s were retired. I know there's an AF squadron at Whidbey flying some Growlers, and they've got the Compass Calls, but I doubt they'd survive long in a conflict with a peer-state.



new topics

top topics



 
134
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join