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.

 

Prepare to meet the F-18 Stingray

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

I reached the point a long time ago where I'm immune to the idiocy that is the Stingray. I just laughed.




posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

By using the 400 gallon tank the Hornet has they can carry five of them total. The 600 gallon tank is a good bit heavier and would probably prevent the outer pylons from carrying the extra two tanks.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Sensei,

Teach me the way of immunity. I cannot master this on my own and my forehead fscking hurts.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I still favor the S-3 COD conversion.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RadioRobert

Once life support and associated human requirements are yanked, they'll be able to add another tank and add fuel. It isn't the best solution in the world, but it meets the timeline. There is no way in hell that a clean sheet design is operational a year after being awarded.


In exchange for all the goodies required to make it autonomous + fuel weight. So almost 7lbs of weight for any available volume by gallon. It's going to be heavier and burn more fuel carrying it out there. Might need new gear to take launch stresses with approx 10000 lbs of weight at launch. Also moving 10000lbs minus pilot, seat, and support (not a net gain hahaha) to the forward fuselage means you need a stronger forward fuselage. More weight. It is going to make some pretty dramatic differences in your balance and flight envelope. Like essentially impossible for controlled flight changes. The SH is already trimmed weird to get rotation on launch. So let's pretend we magically overcome that with canards or something (more weight, design and testing time, etc bc you just undid all your supposed advantages in airframe commonality=timeline, this isn't a "simple" QF-16 conversion now), you're going to have to continue to be oddly trimmed the entire flight. Which means even more fuel burn on the way there (plus new fuselage components probably add more weight to return flight, which means you have even less available offload).

Ignoring the weight and trim effecting fuel burn, do you think they're going to get an extra 1493 gallons into a converted F-18? Because that's what you'd need on top of current capability to hit the minimum 15,000 lb offload at range. Normal ET tanks are less than 500 gallons. You need to get three more+ into the forward fuselage even ignoring the new negative variables like weight and trim.

Unless they drastically scale back the requirement or make a new program, this idea is a dream project from someone who never used a slide rule.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Zaphod58

I still favor the S-3 COD conversion.


Whats wrong with eventually using the V-22s? The Corps is already using the MV-22Bs as tanker aircraft, eventually they'll have an 10k lb offload capacity. No reason (besides the usual stupidity) for the Navy not to do the same with the upcoming CMV-22B...



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Zaphod58

I still favor the S-3 COD conversion.


It doesn't meet the requirements either, but it's closer than the F-18 with better efficiency. They should have built the requirements around this if they just wanted an interim UAV experience. They also used the regular old Hoovers for all sorts of other things that would be useful today (bomb truck in permissive environments, data linking, ELINT, Harpoons, tanking, and say, we still have no fixed-wing ASW onboard for long range ASW). But what do I know?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Zaphod58

I still favor the S-3 COD conversion.


Whats wrong with eventually using the V-22s? The Corps is already using the MV-22Bs as tanker aircraft, eventually they'll have an 10k lb offload capacity. No reason (besides the usual stupidity) for the Navy not to do the same with the upcoming CMV-22B...


Because the V-22 is too slow for ideal receiving and transit times, but way more importantly it has the same problem as the SH. The 10000lb off load is for recovery tanking, not mission tanking. At range the offload drops off dramatically.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
But what do I know?


Sounds like plenty to me.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Zaphod58

I still favor the S-3 COD conversion.


Whats wrong with eventually using the V-22s? The Corps is already using the MV-22Bs as tanker aircraft, eventually they'll have an 10k lb offload capacity. No reason (besides the usual stupidity) for the Navy not to do the same with the upcoming CMV-22B...


Because the V-22 is too slow for ideal receiving and transit times, but way more importantly it has the same problem as the SH. The 10000lb off load is for recovery tanking, not mission tanking. At range the offload drops off dramatically.



I'm not sure about this, but doesnt VARS include additional cabin tanks?
warfaretech.blogspot.com...
Should give them an offload capability at range. Of course it wont be perfect but everything helps at this point.

And what was the S-3Bs offload capacity at range anyway?



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Except that you're losing everything associated with weapons and fire control, so you're losing radar weight as well as everything else related to fire control. You can also lose some redundancy and save weight. And they have some damn nice new composite tanks that they've been working on that will save several hundred pounds per tank.

The F-18E, which these will almost certainly be built off has an internal fuel capacity of 14,400 pounds. Add CFTs, and they gain almost 19,000 pounds, without even touching the externals or adding another tank where the cockpit is. The externals are 480 gallons, adding another 13,000 pounds. That gives them about 46,000 pounds and should meet the 15,000 at 500 nm easily.
edit on 11/7/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/7/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight

I'm not sure about this, but doesnt VARS include additional cabin tanks?


With the forces imposed by launch and recovery, cabin tanks may not be an option.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RadioRobert

The F-18E, which these will almost certainly be built off has an internal fuel capacity of 14,400 pounds. Add CFTs, and they gain almost 19,000 pounds, without even touching the externals or adding another tank where the cockpit is. The externals are 480 gallons, adding another 13,000 pounds. That gives them about 46,000 pounds and should meet the 15,000 at 500 nm easily.

Uhm i think its only 3.5k lb each for the CFTs.


originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: mightmight

I'm not sure about this, but doesnt VARS include additional cabin tanks?


With the forces imposed by launch and recovery, cabin tanks may not be an option.

They are planning to use it for the COD mission, dont think tanks will be any different.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So we have it confirmed they are using rhinos and not the bug version?

I am expecting the really bad news version of that given the stingray program...



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

They'll almost have to use Rhinos. Even adding the CFTs to a Bug, if they even can, they lose a huge amount of fuel. Internal fuel on a Bug isn't even 11,000 pounds, and they use 330 gallon externals. So they end up losing something like 12,000 pounds, if you're being generous and giving them the same capacity CFTs as the Rhino.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, I agree.

However, I can see some serious stupid infesting the program further and I can all too easily see some admiral thinking, "we have all these birds we are retiring. Let's cannibalize them and make stingrays..."



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Even if my numbers are off, which they probably are since I'm not be super critical with sources today, that still gives them enough to offload at 500 nm. That would put them at 34,000 pounds or so, easily enough to offload 15,000.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight
I'm not sure about this, but doesnt VARS include additional cabin tanks?
warfaretech.blogspot.com...
Should give them an offload capability at range. Of course it wont be perfect but everything helps at this point.

And what was the S-3Bs offload capacity at range anyway?


The design goal for VARS is 10,000 lbs in a recovery tanking profile. That's basically hanging out close to the amphibs and giving people a drink to help them retain margins for coming on board.

S-3's had approximately 11k offload at range despite not carrying much more fuel than the SH's do because it has a much, much higher efficiency with the big turbofans.



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RadioRobert

Except that you're losing everything associated with weapons and fire control, so you're losing radar weight as well as everything else related to fire control.

You still have to have ISR and limited strike capability to meet the requirements on top of equipment to be, you know, autonomous. Not seeing a net gain anywhere regarding space or weight.




F-18E, which these will almost certainly be built off has an internal fuel capacity of 14,400 pounds. Add CFTs, and they gain almost 19,000 pounds, without even touching the externals or adding another tank where the cockpit is. The externals are 480 gallons, adding another 13,000 pounds. That gives them about 46,000 pounds and should meet the 15,000 at 500 nm easily.

Those conformal are never going to carry 19000 lbs. Lol you're going to have to half that at least. Where are you getting this? Didn't Boeing say it was 3500 lbs each? That's a deficit even ignoring carrying more mass means higher fuel burns. You get 7k lbs more fuel than your previous iteration. So generously 36000k total (current 29000 list + 7k).
Also MTOW is 66000 lbs and empty weight is 33000 without conformals and weight of ET tanks, pylons, etc. Are you seeing any problems yet?
edit on 7-11-2017 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

Even if my numbers are off, which they probably are since I'm not be super critical with sources today, that still gives them enough to offload at 500 nm. That would put them at 34,000 pounds or so, easily enough to offload 15,000.


They carry 29k right now and can only offload 5000. 7K more even excluding all the other factors to hurt you doesn't get you to 15k offload. It's not as simple as just carrying more fuel.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join