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.

 

New Long Range Bomber/Attack Aircraft With Shape Shifting Hull and Wings

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

They want to retire the A-10 for the same reason they wanted to the last three times. They don't like it because it's not sleek and fast. Not because it has some mythical replacement that can do everything.




posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I hope the A10 never retires for it's gun alone. Geeez that thing is wicked. A10 cannon V. Taliban ATV's and dirt bikes. Total Ownage.

www.military.com...


Hey Zaph. In the linked footage there is a glowing dot or orb that shows up on the gun site HUD. Whats that? Is it like the reflection on the ground visible in IR of the laser target thingy from the A10 it's self or just a targeting reference for the HUD?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7



In the next three years, it has been suggested to me that the B1-B is to be retired due to excessive maintenance and high flight-time costs in concert with inadequate avionics for today's "police action" missions.



“By developing SABR-GS, we’ve enabled capabilities now critical to the mission – a significant milestone for SABR technology and the B-1,” said Paul Kalafos, vice president, surveillance systems business unit, Northrop Grumman. “By leveraging the successes of the SABR for the F-16 fighter, we have activated cost savings for the U.S. Air Force’s B-1 program, proven that SABR AESA technology is scalable and extended the survivability of the aircraft for the next 25 years. The APG-83 version of SABR has been integrated into the F-16 and is part of the F-16A/B upgrade for Taiwan.



If the Tarts would swap out the engines for the newer type used in the F-35 it would be one bad ass mofo with super cruise!! I want to know what complete moron removed these from the nuclear mission in exchange for the B-52H.

19- B-2s and 41- B52H models are the only nuclear ready bombers allowed under the moronic treaty with Russia. They cut the B-1B to 62 aircraft from the 100 we had flying to save money. They need to ditch the old B-52 first.

That's like picking up a hot date just for the foreplay. I know if ten B-2s make it over Russia or China without being seen the ballgame is won but hell, they can only hit so many targets in the short period of time they would need.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

And yet, the old B-52 has, by far, the highest mission capable rates of the bombers,and yet the old B-52 has the highest, by far, mission capable rate of any bomber, and one of the higher rates in the Air Force.

If any of them need to go it's the B-1, with all its maintenance problems that needs to go.
edit on 3/9/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Thing with the B-1B is it would be needed in the event of a major conflict with Russia or China, so there is ZERO chance of them retiring it anytime soon

That threat isn't going away, it's becoming more of a reality, it was proposed to work with F-22 & F-35 in smashing large formations of enemy aircraft

The proposed B-1R missile ship

Oh and this... Which personally I still think was absolutely madness in not doing
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...


I'm sure now more than ever these types of platforms are getting a serious rethinking, possible drawing board phase as we speak



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

edit on 4-4-2016 by Patriotsrevenge because: Mods please remove!



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

And yet, the old B-52 has, by far, the highest mission capable rates of the bombers,and yet the old B-52 has the highest, by far, mission capable rate of any bomber, and one of the higher rates in the Air Force.

If any of them need to go it's the B-1, with all its maintenance problems that needs to go.


And they said the same about the F-111. Look at us now with NO medium bomber at all. The B-52 doesn't have to do anything fancy with these conflicts today but fly like a commercial air liner so of course its not going to get stressed. They already rebuilt everything on them and they use them more because in a real war they need the other bombers just to penetrate a decent air defense. The B1 was built for one mission, not to fly back and fourth dropping conventional bombs on sheep herders.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TritonTaranis



Oh and this... Which personally I still think was absolutely madness in not doing foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...


That would have made a hell of a lot more sense than converting four very needed Ohio class subs to launch them. The 747 can go a lot faster than people think as well.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

And the B-1 had less than a 50% mission capable rate in addition to being as maintenance intensive, if not more than the B-2, without the advantages the B-2 has.
edit on 4/5/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

And just how fast are you going to claim that is?



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: TritonTaranis

That would have made a hell of a lot more sense than converting four very needed Ohio class subs to launch them. The 747 can go a lot faster than people think as well.


eermm really? I think a 747 is slower than a B-52, but I don't know how fast you think I think a 747 is :-)

Cheers
Robbie
edit on 5-4-2016 by stratsys-sws because: Formatting



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: stratsys-sws

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: TritonTaranis

That would have made a hell of a lot more sense than converting four very needed Ohio class subs to launch them. The 747 can go a lot faster than people think as well.


eermm really? I think a 747 is slower than a B-52, but I don't know how fast you think I think a 747 is :-)

Cheers
Robbie


===

A VERY Intersting question!

One Boeing engineer I had spoken to had his team
take a 747 to just before the shockwave barriers
that occur before the Speed of Sound gets hit.

They took it to just under 600MPH at 40,000 feet

or 59 MPH below the 659 MPH of Speed of Sound
at the 40k flight envelope test ceiling.

Please do note this was TRUE AIRSPEED and
NOT with a tailwind!

DESIGN WISE- ONLY SELECT versions of the 747
have the structural integrity and wing-shape
to survive the supersonic transition period
intact without excessive hull and wing stress.

THAT SAID design-wise, CERTAIN VERSIONS
of the B747, if they had the engines, WOULD
SURVIVE to low supersonic speeds!
And that is DIRECTLY FROM A
LONG-STANDING BOEING DESIGN ENGINEER!



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

There is no way that a 747 could survive more than a momentary Mach 1 speed, similar to the DC-8 that did it. And then it could only do it in a dive. The wing and structure is completely wrong for supersonic speeds, and the drag penalty would be ridiculous. Not even the military versions could do it, as none of them are optimized for it, by wing or fuselage shape.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

There is no way that a 747 could survive more than a momentary Mach 1 speed, similar to the DC-8 that did it. And then it could only do it in a dive. The wing and structure is completely wrong for supersonic speeds, and the drag penalty would be ridiculous. Not even the military versions could do it, as none of them are optimized for it, by wing or fuselage shape.


----

I don't have any FURTHER information (I can ask!)
on how long it would survive at low supersonic speeds.
I do know however that about 600 mph is the highest
it's been taken based upon one person's account.

In terms of aerodynamic design, the wing and hull
configuration I was told can take the abuse on certain
400 and 800 series models which would preclude any
models earlier than that! I didn't ask for how long
they could take the abuse though!

I suspect the CAD/CAE/FEA done in the late
1980's for the B747-400 and early 2000's for the
B747-800 ALLOWED for a supersonic flight
hull design and wing structure integrity
evaluation at supersonic speeds BUT
after accounting for hull building materials,
I think we can agree it probably would
be a BAD IDEA to try and take it past
600 to 680 MPH for very long!

Getting supersonic engines would a whole
different issue though and would LIKELY
require a redesign of the engine pods and mountings!

I do have an interesting note though, I actually remember
seeing an official letterheaded request from a Joint Chiefs
staff member about whether the B747 could have
it's engines redesigned and hull strengthened for
supersonic flight (late 1990's) --- On a verbal basis,
the answer from Boeing was a strong yes but it
will cost ya! I know that letter wasn't stamped
Confidential or S/TS so the GAO or Congressional
records office should still have a public copy somewhere!


edit on 2016/4/5 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

The prototype 747-100 was put into a dive during flight testing, and reach over Mach 0.9, with no damage, and no problems to the aircraft.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7


I should also note this....

"18 May 1953, Jacqueline Cochran
became the first woman to break the sound barrier, flying
a "one-off" Canadian-built F-86 Sabre Mk 3, alongside Chuck Yeager"

Link:
en.wikipedia.org...

And the F86 Sabre has a wing sweep of 35 degrees
not too far off from the 37.5 degrees of many models
of the B747 which was ORIGINALLY supposed to have
a 40 degree wing sweep back the 1970's.

So I do must say that SOMEONE in the USAF
probably in the 1980's ASKED Boeing to consider
an extended use of the B747 design and ASKED
how much it would take and cost to do so
in order to take the B747 into low supersonic territory!

Bet ya two-bits someone did a test of that in
some wind-tunnel to see if the B747 could be
turned into a Huge Supersonic Bomber!

And in MY BOOK real-world flight testing
and evaluation of a modified test plane
would PROBABLY have taken place at
Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio because
of the technical resources available
there! I would ALSO not be surprised
to see that someone wanted to do
a KC-B747 design for aerial refueling!


edit on 2016/4/5 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Ever see the series UFO and their supersonic transport?
shadolibrary.org...



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Wing sweep is fairly irrelevant in this case, as the wing is optimized for high subsonic speeds. If you actually look at a supersonic aircraft, they all have a supercritical wing. The 747 has a high lift, subsonic wing. You can't go supersonic with that type of wing, as it would create too much drag, and the stress would damage the wing. Even if they had gone with a 40 degree sweep, it still wouldn't be able to go supersonic.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

The Iranian's have the only CURRENT KC Aerieal Refueling Tanker B747 design:
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...

Cruise Missile Carrying 747:
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...


Looks like a few militray people have already had/have
some ideas for extensions to the B747 design!



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

There have been probably a dozen ideas for military 747s over the years. It's a versatile airframe design.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join