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.

 

Weird California sighting

page: 82
134
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

The F-117 had the RCS of a small bird. The LRS will have an RCS of a mouse.




posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand high altitude and medium altitude. But wouldn't you also want optical camo at very low altitudes too. Or is that where "other" methods come in of optical camo.


edit on 18-12-2014 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They use 1,600F to put the coating on the pots/pans though...?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I've heard even smaller like marble sized for RCS. Maybe that's for the fighters though.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It's not designed to withstand the air pressure and constant heat.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It was an analogy. I'm not going to give an accurate description of the RCS.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom
The so called "diamond coated " pans are not diamond coated at all. They are coated with micro diamond infused PTFE(Teflon).
Not at all the same thing as a pvd pcd(physical vapor deposition polycrystalline diamond) coating, that is very common for cutting tools used only in non ferrous alloys.
Vapor deposition temperatures are higher than the melting point of aluminum, and you can't coat any iron based alloys with diamond, the iron just absorbs the carbon, making the surface extremely hard, but no where near as hard as actual diamonds.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

ABLE archer perhaps?



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There are active ways of reducing RCS rather fabricating any RCS on the fly. It's not all in the skin.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

No, it's not. But the skin is one of the primary ways to do it, and the biggest way they've looked at and worked on.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am very interested in Raytheon's technology behind MALD. I have a close source there of which I'm going to speak with over the holidays. From what I'm hearing this capability is going to be (read: is) incorporated into next gen airframes.

www.raytheon.com...

F-35 into a 767-400ER?... No problem boss.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Would the visible distortion be good for a Chopper or Chopper replacement?

I think I recall the cancellation of the Commanche was because the Apache was already years ahead of its competition despite being a 40 year old (would I like to be that!). However, that was over 10+ years ago so I suppose unless you are sending the desert dwellers to their god, a full on Red Army rolling over BAOR and the Europeans, they probably have some anti Apache manpads now which require an Apache update.

I do have dreams where a Longbow lases 90 tanks from behind cover and a group of Typhoon fly in with 16 Brimstone each and wipe out everyone.

Now I know this thread is all about LRS-B types, but since we are talking stealth, in field, in the CAS role, if you want to replace Apache, would you go for another Helo with latest stealth or a small(ish) "drone" which is quiet and invisible and slightly dumb (no avionics or radar just a receiver) armed with numerous Hellfire whilst another bigger UAV circles higher and has the expensive avionics, knows where every one of it "drones" are and starts lasing the tank group and then telling the drones where to fly and what to shoot at.

So thats low speed which wouldnt be as abrasive to the coating?



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Zaph do you think about the Punkinworks sighting has something to see with your California friend sighting in the start of this thread ?



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

They just flew MALD-J recently. The next generation is incredibly advanced compared to the original MALD/MALD-J.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheCrowMan

If you could keep the sound down, which they can, yes it would work well on a helo.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I'm curious...since we can minimize the RCS via shape, coating, and other active methods I was thinking... Has anyone ever tried creating a fake/ larger RCS as a decoy? A la launching a missile from a separate location and making it look like a plane, while the actual plane looks like a bird coming from an entirely different direction?



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am very interested in Raytheon's technology behind MALD. I have a close source there of which I'm going to speak with over the holidays. From what I'm hearing this capability is going to be (read: is) incorporated into next gen airframes.

www.raytheon.com...

F-35 into a 767-400ER?... No problem boss.




Holy #...and then I clicked on your link.

Brilliant.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I posted this in another forum but I think it has relevance to what you just said.

originally posted by: TheCrowMan
Now I know this thread is all about LRS-B types, but since we are talking stealth, in field, in the CAS role, if you want to replace Apache, would you go for another Helo with latest stealth or a small(ish) "drone" which is quiet and invisible and slightly dumb (no avionics or radar just a receiver) armed with numerous Hellfire whilst another bigger UAV circles higher and has the expensive avionics, knows where every one of it "drones" are and starts lasing the tank group and then telling the drones where to fly and what to shoot at.


I'm a huge fan of this idea. Check out this old QH-50 variant that carried a mini gun?

www.gyrodynehelicopters.com...

I believe LM is bringing this idea back....


www.lockheedmartin.com...

If this ever gets off the ground [pun intended] Fire Scout could be in some trouble. Which btw is supposed to get some APKWS rockets soon.
edit on 19-12-2014 by aholic because: better link



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: parad0x122

originally posted by: aholic
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am very interested in Raytheon's technology behind MALD. I have a close source there of which I'm going to speak with over the holidays. From what I'm hearing this capability is going to be (read: is) incorporated into next gen airframes.

www.raytheon.com...

F-35 into a 767-400ER?... No problem boss.




Holy #...and then I clicked on your link.

Brilliant.


So now when Putin's cronies shoot down yet another airliner, they will claim it was dastardly Americans all along and it only LOOKED like a Su-27 or russian SAM to the world.

Anyway, back to LRS-B. Of all people, Astr0 answered the question, back before he turned all nutty and when off on buried AI's and starchild societies.



What I heard though was that Lockheed gets the sub sonic bomber and the supersonic UAV (with Boeing on the bomber) whilst Northrop gets the supersonic manned element and the sub sonic UCAV (with Boeing).

It seems Boeing has 'some thing sexy' its figured out for sub- sonic airframes and is deep in the pie dish this time around.


That's four. Subsonic bomber (punkinworks?). Supersonic UAV (bassplyr?)

Supersonic manned (green lady?) Subsonic UCAV (bassplyr?)



I scry with my little crystal ball eye.....Fluidic thrust vectoring coming of age. Works wonders on tailess aircraft and as a signature reduction method, well, what better than to stop all those pesky flaps from being so damn needy over a combat zone. Take offs going to be easier too. Oh and lets not over look the cooling effect of suoersonic cold air.


Funny how people in the know use just the right technical keywords.

www.geocities.ws...

ntrs.nasa.gov...




edit on 19-12-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
What I saw was not the Subsonic UCAV in my opinion. It was a perfect triangle with three bluish white light like orbs. It traveled at the most conservative a rate of 900 mph. basing it on a very conservative "I saw it about a quarter mile out. took 1 second to travel quarter mile to my position. then I saw it travel another quarter mile before I lost it and that took another 1 second." So it travelled at the most conservative 1 mile in 4 seconds. Isn't that like 900 MPH? or 15 miles a minute? At about 1000 foot altitude. Over a city. With no noise. No contrail. Nobody noticing.

And I'm pretty sure it was doing twice that. It was a clear night and I believe I saw it cover a lot more sky than half a mile. It was travelling down the length of my street with no large buildings obstructing it. I would say I saw it from 26th and Wilshire area to at least Westwood Blvd and it covered that in 2 seconds. So whatever that distance is, is what it was doing in 2 seconds. Pretty impressive whatever it is.




top topics



 
134
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join