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.

 

Silencing Stealth Technology ?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I remember the first time i watched the B2 fly at Edwards. I thought to myself about how quiet she is. Couldnt hear her until she was practically overhead.




posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I think that is a combination of low speed turbofans being buried deep inside the plane body as well as having the exhaust leave the main body of the plane whilst still being shielded from the ground...

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Borys

They use a few other tricks too, but a large part of it is just having the exhaust blocked, like you say. The F-117 did the same thing by blowing the exhaust up from the back of the wing.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: myselfaswell

The B-2 is far quieter than people think. One of the ways they do that is a series of baffles in the exhaust. It also helps reduce the IR signature. Putting the exhaust on the back of the aircraft is another trick they use. The fuselage blocks some of the sound.

You also have to take into account the altitude they operate at. A commercial aircraft at 35,000 feet isn't the loudest thing as it goes over. Now put an F-22 at 50,000+ feet and fly it over and the odds are you won't hear a thing unless they're supersonic. .


I saw a B2 at an air show and even at the low altitude it was from taking off, it was super quiet as it went overhead.



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Tricks borrowed from navy studies on silencing moving fluids?



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

One thing I am certain of is that there is so much compartmentalization in the US military research that a lot of money is either wasted on things that have been done before or new projects fail because they lacked a key piece of data from earlier research. I do know that on balance security considerations will need to outweigh other goals, but still, those precious dollars going up in smoke...ughhh...



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Borys

There's more than one advancement that actually worked out better by going back to square one and starting with newer technology.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Borys

There's more than one advancement that actually worked out better by going back to square one and starting with newer technology.


The YB-35/49 could be a classic case of that. Look how far NG has come now with that design. And that's just what we know about. ( Well, you know more than the rest of us, but you know what I mean ).
Obviously, the Germans had a flying wing design, and I'm sure there is probably a few more knocking around, but pretty radical ideas when you think of how long ago it was.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And not just on the pure military side, but also in management consulting...

news.efinancialcareers.com...

Point 6 is interesting...

“Rather than try to fit problems into existing frameworks, teams at BCG have a tendency to look at each problem from a fresh and build a solution from the ground up. This has its ups and downs, as sometimes teams repeat work.”

But having said that, I have done some work in defense: not in the deliverable itself, but rather, delivering postmortems on projects that did not go the way they were supposed to. What struck me was that despite the brilliance of so many people, with access to the best methodologies and technologies, too often hundreds of millions were blown before someone said "Enough!". There is nothing wrong with a can do attitude to technical challenges that see people put in insane hours and all of their skills to get that breakthrough, but all too often I saw "Can do with more effort" become "Can't fail as long as we keep throwing money at it." Maybe, maybe not. But as that happened, there were other, equally pressing projects that had to be put aside for lack of funds, often with far lower risk.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join