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.

 

Meet the B-21

page: 13
32
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It was more or less a self destruct just in case it wandered off the range. I think it was operating just fine but someone hit the red button.

Although I like your Johnny Five scenario better.




posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It's a hard kill system installed in the aircraft. It could be a small explosive, or it could kill all the on board systems causing it to crash on the range. It keeps it from going outside the range and crashing into a populated area.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhantomTwo
a reply to: BASSPLYR
I think it was operating just fine but someone hit the red button.



edit on 27-2-2016 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

from everything I read it sounded more like it killed the systems rather than detonating an explosive.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

so....


somewhere back at the control shack:

short, hobbit looking pilot in blue flight suit sits at the monitor slapping the joystick that's functioning as the control yoke for polecat.

"why isn't it responding!"

polecat: "what are you doing dave?..."

slaps the joystick around some more, clicks hopelessly on the mouse.

polecat: " initiate self destruct sequence, initiate self destruct sequence...."

operator: "what?!? no!! I order you to release controls back to remote pilot polecat!"

polecat: "sorry, i can't help you dave.....daisy, daisy...."

polecat rolls into an inverted dive towards the desert floor.


edit on 27-2-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

Polecat was never a prototype, it was a demonstrator built on Lockheed's dime to show that they could build a low cost, stealthy UAV, quickly. They accidentally activated the range safety system on it's second or third flight, and it impacted the desert and was destroyed.


===

Hmmmm....unfortunately I cannot say much more because
I simply do not have any other information other than on
a call sign sheet I have that a Polecat UAV is called Strikestar.

I'm all ears if anyone has more information on multiple Polecats,
prototypes or otherwise, being transferred to NASA as a high
altitude research platform. (IF that was indeed the case!)

On a personal note I HAD NOT HEARD that a Polecat
had been destroyed and/or crashed on purpose!
I don't usually follow something like Polecat.


edit on 2016/2/27 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: PhantomTwo

From what I've heard over the years, they tend to use that on the ranges in testing, to keep from spreading flaming debris all over the range, and possibly burning everything around it to the ground. Once they get out into the wild, they tend to use explosives to ensure that critical systems are destroyed.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AceWombat04


One other public system I have heard about is an unusual double-wing
wing design high-altitude long-endurance category of aircraft called
the X56a which ALSO might be responsible for some "Black Aircraft"
reports. They are/will be testing a "Double-boomerang" design to
see if it would help increase wing lift efficiency and/or help
aircraft stability in someway. I don't have any other info
other than some weblinks.

See Links:
www.compositesworld.com...

and

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

The X-56A was designed to test various configurations, and had nothing whatsoever to do with any HALE programs. It was testing active flutter suppression and flexible wings to improve efficiency. It wasn't ever going to be a HALE, or any other type of military system and was strictly a testbed prior to crashing.

www.lockheedmartin.com...
edit on 2/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

The X-56A was designed to test various configurations, and had nothing whatsoever to do with any HALE programs. It was testing active flutter suppression and flexible wings to improve efficiency. It wasn't ever going to be a HALE, or any other type of military system and was strictly a testbed prior to crashing.

www.lockheedmartin.com...


NOW I KNOW !!! ... thx for the info.

I see I misread the HALE thing -ooops- it is the
FOLLOW-ON projects that will use some of the
technologies tested on this X56a system.
I had NEVER heard of it before today!

A very interesting non-HALE craft nonetheless.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Looks very Polecatty like..



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   
A double wing, is lift an issue on stealthy strategic flying wing type design? I thought the BWB was all lift and stealth and pretty much perfect for the current generations?

Fly by wire and modern jet engines means traditional lift is a little redundant non?



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Its all about how holey your wing is now



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   
How many engine on the B-21 can we expect ? If its a heavy bomber I don't think that two F-135 will be enough to push the plane.
edit on 28-2-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 06:30 AM
link   
PW are designated for engine manufacturer so an ADVENT derivative will be used.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The project 175 range safety event was the official story, but I've been told is not what happened. It makes for a logical ending that reduces further questions, I suppose.
edit on 28-2-2016 by TAGBOARD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

It's not a heavy bomber so two ADVENT type PW engines are enough.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

uh. We'll see. I'm not betting either way just yet for how many engines. There might be a trick they can use smaller cores with bigger fans to reduce IR, but it might not be great under all circumstances. Hence, might still use 4.

We'll see.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

seeing as this new bomber can supposedly do something air to air no previous bomber has had the ability to do. (I'm speculating laser) one would need some decent power.

so I'm hoping 4 smaller cores with better "compressors." take the energy from the two outer or inner ones while the others just run normally to limit momentary thrust drop off. or something similar. should also help with IR too.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
My guess? Since the shape isn't that seemingly new (probably near optimal for the problems being solved), I suspect it's a roll-out platform for a new feature set. I think it's going to be a lot cleaner on its surfaces with a significantly reduced amount of exterior control surfaces and it's going to use adaptive wing technology. Hydraulic bladders that can change the wing chord profile along with wing twisting mechanisms. Perhaps a bit more washout on the baseline profile so it's actually more stable for takeoff and landing than the previous flying wings. Revised intake which eliminates the finicky screen that some stealth designs have used, instead using an S-channel to redirect and absorb any radar reflections that make it into the nacelle.

Other than elimitaning control surfaces, I'm guessing it's not too fancy outside of newer avionics. Just needed improvements and revisions for efficiency and better turn-around.




top topics



 
32
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join