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.

 

Lockheed to Offer new Fighter to Japan Using Hybrid of F-22 & F-35 Tech

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

the yellow light has an ....interesting.... movement profile. When i saw it, it looked like it was stepping with very rigid and straight movements across the sky very very quickly that i assume it has to be in space. and the fact that ive only seen it twice i assume means it goes up and comes back. what got it up there? clearly not a heavy lift rocket.

unless there is something up there that can disguise itself as a normal sat and when called upon do its mission and then return to said orbit. that seems very far fetched as it would take a ton of fuel/energy.

so that says to me there is either a TSTO or a SSTO(doubtful) with the TSTO you could make one to carry the spacecraft and another version as a high speed attack capable aircraft kind of a 3 for 1.

and that means we have broken the hypersonic barrier along time ago, and im not even going to get into the black triangles that clearly exist(seen one myself, small f-16 sized one).


i dont get all the cloak and dagger stuff because the very people the AF/NRO etc hid this stuff from paid for it, and the ones it targets know all about them via radar and espionage. so why hide it?




posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3
Breaking the hypersonic barrier has never been an issue. Doing so with an airbreathing engine is. Rocket based engines launched from whatever platform work fine.
The main issue i have with an TSTO system is payload. It might be possible to build a rocket powered orbiter, but i dont see it carrying a whole lot of anything once you add life support and a return capability. I absolutely do not think there is some kind of shuttle like vehicle launched from some sort of high Mach carrier platform, capable of putting satellites into orbit or something like that - if you'd want to do that, just launch the satellite without the orbiter, IE Pegasus on steroids.
The math for that doesnt work out unless we're considering magic like propulsion concepts.
But thats indeed black triangle territory, not something they may or may not have built during the Reagan or Bush Sen admin.
As to why hide it - at this point mainly because its easier to hide than to declassify. In the case of certain projects - to avoid the question what they used it for and what system succeeded it.



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

The Space Shuttle hit mach 21 in the upper atmosphere on reentry, by that logic we've shattered the hypersonic barrier since the early 60s with the X-15.

Like mightmight said, the hard part is doing it with an air-breathing engine.

That said, few to none of the rumors or stories about an 80s or 90s era TSTO ever involved an air-breathing second stage, and in all likelihood, if it ever existed, it would have likely resembled something like an M-21 on steroids that launched an X-15 on steroids from 80,000'+ at Mach 3+ where all that extra altitude and speed might just be enough to push your glorified Pegasus's mass fraction into somewhere that would make a manned single-stage craft able to actually hit orbit if you were willing to use some exotic and nasty propellants that NASA or the private sector would steer clear from because the NDAs and security clearances would keep the air and ground crews from publically suing you when they all got cancer 15 years later.
edit on 2-1-2019 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   
This is a mythical plane that don't exist. Lockheed ain't going to spend money developing F-40 just for Japan. Japan is buying F-35. End of story.



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: rutman

I could see them building an F-22 derived "F-3" if and only if the Japanese want to throw their aviation industry enough of a bone that they're actually willing to give them the money to build all-new tooling domestically like they did for the F-2. If their government is feeling bullish enough, I could see them doing it, but realistically I would bet that they're going to buy a lot more F-35s and while likely getting invited into the F-XX program at some point in the future.
edit on 2-1-2019 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 2-1-2019 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
Double post


F-3 is very small plane. F-3 is F-5 class size plane. It does not meet Japan's requirement.
edit on 2-1-2019 by rutman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: rutman

I think the original plan was the F-3 as a technology demonstrator for the things they wanted to scale up to a somewhat lighter than F-35 size fighter. It quickly became evident that for the money they'd spend on developing and maturing the new design, the total program costs would outweigh any procurement price "savings". Hence the bigger F-35 buy. They'll have to marry an international partner for any other follow-on to make sense. In this meantime they'll continue to spend seed money and keep their domestic industry healthy and relevant.



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Correct. Japan economy is weak. Contractions. So they need to restrict their military budget. F-35 is currently their only affordable option.



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: rutman

Calling the ATD-X the F-3 would be like calling the Have Blue the F-117. They're related, but they're completely different aircraft. In all likelihood though, the "F-3" moniker will be attached to the next somewhat indigenously designed/built Japanese fighter, regardless of what that aircraft actually is.



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: penroc3

The Space Shuttle hit mach 21 in the upper atmosphere on reentry, by that logic we've shattered the hypersonic barrier since the early 60s with the X-15.

Like mightmight said, the hard part is doing it with an air-breathing engine.

That said, few to none of the rumors or stories about an 80s or 90s era TSTO ever involved an air-breathing second stage, and in all likelihood, if it ever existed, it would have likely resembled something like an M-21 on steroids that launched an X-15 on steroids from 80,000'+ at Mach 3+ where all that extra altitude and speed might just be enough to push your glorified Pegasus's mass fraction into somewhere that would make a manned single-stage craft able to actually hit Orbit

Way too small.
Mach 3 at 80k sounds impressive but it actually is not the huge leg up everyone thinks it is.
LEO means at least Mach 22 at 650k. A M-21 on Steroids would give you considerably less than 15% of what you need to do.
If you look at white world research into this stuff, the math has you ending up with almost ridiculously large launching platforms and especially orbiters - with seperation speeds well in excess of what was achieved publicly.
But not impossible. Boeing Beta is making the rounds recently (funny that) and at this point they have basically admitted that they pushed turboramjet tech like on the 71 to at least Mach 5 anyway. Make of it what you will.
In the end, strapping the satellite to an rocket propelled upper stage will always be superior to an orbiter. Very, very few missions would require a manned return capability.



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

if you listen carefully to some talks given by one of the men who flew the SR-71, he said he was trying to outrun a russian SAM and he just pushed the throttle all the way forward and it took his back seater to tell him to ease up because in his own words "were seeing mach numbers that were scary".

thats saying allot in a mach 3.2(unclassified) speed aircraft. He also said it had NO problem getting up to mach 3 and beyond, it would be interesting to know at what temp the Titanium skin would lose structural integrity, because i think that might give a glimpse on its real ability



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

It's actually just more math. There's math for the extended temps for the engine and the airflow through the nacelle (CIT). Even more limiting than the mat science is when the shockwave from the nose hits the wing's outer section, or worse, the nacelles. The J-58 itself was run (in tunnels at least) quite a bit faster with a few modifications to the engine and inlet as mentioned earlier. The airframe itself was relatively safe from a temp perspective beyond those limitations.
You can probably fudge the first one more than the latter.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Check out your messages, elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 3 2019 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Heard a story the fastest an F111 flew was a little bit higher than its reported Mach 2.5.It has traditional aluminium and Fibreglass construction so things can be pushed a bit.
Off my hazy memory from my structures course many years ago an airframe has a redundancy structure of 165%.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Afaik SR-71 is limited by compressor inlet temperature. There are claims that it could go Mach 3.5. But probably only for very short amounts of time, risking engine damage.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius
The point anyway is that they were able to push the tech used on the 71 to at least Mach 5, not the aircraft itself.
Last year the CTO of Boeing was openly speaking about them being able to build a profitable (!) Mach 5 (!) airliner (!) with off the shelf (!) technology utilizing the turboramjet concept.
If they think about passenger airplanes today, they flew the tech 20 years ago in the black.
This is the article, as usual barely anyone took note:
www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight



a look into the future

cool particle beam publication

ETA: there are some cool pics in the first link, ot even has what looks like a LO tanker under the tactical autonomy page out looks like they show the b21 or maybe the loser
edit on 7-1-2019 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join