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.

 

Northrop Grumman announces fighter bid

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The Pentagon has switched major contracts to largely fixed price over the last two years.




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Very cool, I bet they have an even greater head start on the programs already. Is super-maneuverability going out of fashion now? With it being a tail less design I guess that counts a modern F-23 out.

So if the tradition of naming aircraft after birds of prey remains what names are left? Owl is the only appropriate name I could think of for a fighter but also for other aircraft as well.


Something that does sort of nag at me, about a year or so ago there was a featured guest on ATS that claimed was in the aviation industry and I asked about what the next generation fight aircraft might look like, nothing specific. All I got was a snotty reply about America not having enough money for some other BS reason.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
They could make a next generation F/A/B?/E?-14...bring back the Tom Cat!

The old F-14s had a higher top speed, fuel range, weapon capacity, and climb rate that today's F/A-18. Just think of the damage a Tom Cat could do with vectored thrust.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod Just think of the damage a Tom Cat could do with vectored thrust.


And how fast it would get shot down in a modern IADS threat environment.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

My guess is that direct energy weapons are going to be the deal in sixth gen for both offensive and defensive tasks. If true, maneuverability will play virtually no role, and it is going to be all about stealth and range.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius

How do they generate the massive energy requirements for energy weapons to be placed inside a fighter airframe? The current flying energy weapon is in a 747. As well, energy weapons aren't over the horizon so missile tech already has them beat for distance.
edit on 23-1-2015 by noeltrotsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: moebius

How do they generate the massive energy requirements for energy weapons to be placed inside a fighter airframe? The current flying energy weapon is in a 747. As well, energy weapons aren't over the horizon so missile tech already has them beat for distance.


There are energy weapons in existance that can be used to blind polits. I also think there is a treaty signed that such weapons cant be put on a fighter ???

In the mid 90s we tested energy weapons to blind soldiers on the Field. But i havent see them since the 90s.
We had these mounted on SUVs when testing. It is much like being blined by the sun and afterwards you see a lot of black spots messig up Your eye sight.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius

Speed and electronic warfare capabilities as well as optionally manned platforms and more will also be added to the mix, This is a very exciting time in the aviation world.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
maybe they will slave the new un manned fighters to a manned one and theywill be a AI wingman.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: moebius

How do they generate the massive energy requirements for energy weapons to be placed inside a fighter airframe? The current flying energy weapon is in a 747. As well, energy weapons aren't over the horizon so missile tech already has them beat for distance.
one reason the ABL was cancelled other that excessive ideology getting in the way is that the technology was out of date by the time they were ready to field test it at full power. Lasers of comparable power can now be fitted on hummers. because the cooling needs have been reduced and because the aiming optics have become much simpler. and that is just the stuff that is not classified. in reality we now have lasers that can be aimed like a phased array radar with phase shift drivers and frequency based steering. the laser emitters can be slabs, fiber optical, led or even a liquid lasing medium. many of those require little cooling because the weapon beam is created by combining many small lasers with individually small wattage and therefore small thermal heating. it is not a stretch to believe the TRL for LASER weapons in the classified world are such that they can predict they will be mature in time for a next generation fighter.

Also there has been substantial progress in keeping the beam together and at weapons level power for extended ranges at lower power input than needed for older laser tech that needed excessive power to compensate for atmospheric losses.

EDIT: three things killed the ABL as far as i can tell:

1. political opposition. this opposition was present even before the limitations and vulnerabilities of the concept were known so it had no technical tactical or strategic justification.

2. The tech moved much faster than the contract did. the thing was obsolete before it could be fielded.

3. the limited range meant it had to fly very close to the target and it was an insanely vulnerable target. it would not survive the mission it was designed for because air defense and interceptors would nail it in seconds to minutes while it had to loiter to perform it's mission. the platform it was on was slow huge, undefended and came complete with a giant please shoot me down sign on the fuselage and tail.


edit on 24-1-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Just gonna throw this out there since I know it turns Zaph on..

Could this be the TR3-B or Aurora project???





Sorry bud.

All silliness aside, I'm glad they're jumping in. I'm also glad I bought some NOC shares a few months ago :-)
edit on 24-1-2015 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TXRabbit

You know I can post ban you, right?



Not that I would, although I do kinda feel like torturing a rabbit after that comment.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: noeltrotsky

It's an acceptance of the fact that they're facing 20 years of development, and not waiting to get it started.


My Preciousssss...what has the nasty hobbits got in their pocketses? A few billion in gold ringses, perhaps?
edit on 24-1-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

There are energy weapons in existance that can be used to blind polits.


It's called "bribery". The dreaded pork seeking missile. Hopefully, the polits attracted to this project will be needing some votes soon. Yessss.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
My question is, the next gen fighter will be the one that replaces the F-22. How do we get super-manueverablitiy with a tailless design? And the next step in stealth is gonna be visual. So as long as it has an rcs at or below that of the raptor, and we have a visual stealth capability, then i dont see a need to drastically change the planform design too much.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Visual stealth still has a few issues, but by the time the sixth gen is flying I'd be willing to bet they have them solved.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

Visual stealth still has a few issues, but by the time the sixth gen is flying I'd be willing to bet they have them solved.


so would you agree that making a tailless design would make it less manuverable compared to a raptor? even with the increase in computing power?



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

I've seen some of the tailless designs do some insane maneuvering. Some of the designs from the 90s were impressive. I'm not going to put money on them not being super maneuverable.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

any pics for the curious minds? i didnt know there were allot of tailless in the 1990's. i was under the impression that you needed a good fly by wire control system for such things



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

A flying wing is basically a tailless design. Tailless aircraft have been seen as early as 1915.

en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join