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.

 

USAF's tanker of the future

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
hahah that YC14 thing looks funny. i would shoot it down just for bein goofy looking.




posted on May, 29 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The USAF is really going for an all stealth fleet.

B-2 Stategic nuclear Bomber
F/A-22 Air Superiority Fighter
F/A-35 Multi-role Fighter bomber

And now a stealth tanker and a stealth special operations transport.

It's good to be the USAF



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
One of my friends has been a pilot in the RAF for 4 years and is now a leading technician in RADAR and analysis. He was talking to me the other day, and he was saying about all this stealth and stuff. he said that the only way to truly avoid radar was to fly below 600m or something. he said u can disguise radar, but no avoid it completely. he told me how he's id'd about 8 stealth fighters in practice runs. The British built radar, so they know how to get around things about it. imight be wrong, but hes been in the raf for about 10 years, so he knows his stuff.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
It looks abit odd...like a F-22 that ate to much, but its not to bad looking.

I think the USAF should have a stealth tanker, since its air refueling stealth crafts are growing: F-117, B-2, F/A-22, F-35, X-45C (the last 2 are future ones).

the BWB is a good stealth shape, so I would prefer Boeing to build a next gen stealth tanker.





posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago


the BWB is a good stealth shape, so I would prefer Boeing to build a next gen stealth tanker.


[img]


Beoing have ditched the Blended Wing Body project, so sad to see it happen, they felt it would not be accepted as being too unconventional



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Murcielago, I really, and I mean REALLY, like the look of that tanker with the Raptor



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
It is true that the BWB project has been cancelled as an airliner but it would be sweet to see as a mid airrefueling aircraft.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
It looks abit odd...like a F-22 that ate to much, but its not to bad looking.

I think the USAF should have a stealth tanker, since its air refueling stealth crafts are growing: F-117, B-2, F/A-22, F-35, X-45C (the last 2 are future ones).

the BWB is a good stealth shape, so I would prefer Boeing to build a next gen stealth tanker.




Sorry but what you posted is refueling version of Lockheed MACK.





posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Well I hope they go with this instead of that Airbus concept. Airbuses are a massive pain in the rear to do maintenence operations on, not a good thing when you're messing with precision inflight equipment.


Just curious, why do you say that Airbuses are difficult to do maintenance on, my understanding is that they are among the easiest to maintain in the air?



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I forget the exact part but I've heard that certain parts, I believe in the wings are difficult to reach by mechanics. I'll look into it when I get a chance.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Your sure...I thought Mack was a UCAV and not a tanker.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
MACK stands for M-X A-X C-X and K-X. It is manned modular universal platform for future USAF aircraft. Proposed was also bomber variant called BMACK as one of four Lockheeds proposals to Interim Bomber iniciative. I am now writing article about it



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I forget the exact part but I've heard that certain parts, I believe in the wings are difficult to reach by mechanics. I'll look into it when I get a chance.


Maybe they should get stepladders then........



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
www.afrl.af.mil...
Picture

January 2005

"AFRL and Lockheed Martin partnered to complete approximately 200 hours of wind tunnel tests on a model of a next-generation tanker concept. During 2 weeks of testing at Lockheed Martin facilities in Marietta, Georgia, engineers collected aerodynamic data showing the effects of placing tanker equipment in various positions on the model. Analyzing this data will provide a better idea of how changing the equipment’s position between locations such as the model’s centerline or in a pod on the wingtip might affect a future tanker’s lift and drag.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by NWguy83]


I don't care how it perform, it looks like a frog lay open and about to be dissected


redesign and make it look nicer please



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Wow Intresting pics, looks like its gonna be a really fast plane. They probably are making that way so it will be compatible with the new hypersonic bombers we have planned. And of course it looks stealthy, man the US is really coming out with intresting concepts. I like the idea of beign able to refuel in enemy aerspace with out the enemy knowing your there!



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I used a search tool and couldn't find the answer to my question and I didn't want to create a new thread just for this question. I was wondering if it would be possible to do air refueling while flying supersonic? I know that there's no supersonic tanker at the moment, but I want to know why is this a bad idea?



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: robi1000

Because at that speed if you suddenly stick something out into the airflow, and it's not perfectly aerodynamic, it tends to get ripped off and thrown at planes flying behind it.



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
That's true, but for example ordinance isn't ripped off from the wings at M1+. I'm sure such boom could be designed not to be ripped off from the aircraft. I always thought it was more of a boom control issue at those speeds, maybe Boomer135 could share his view on this?

Maybe that was a bad example, because forces on ordinance build up gradually with speed, but the dorsal air brake on F-15 can be deployed at any speed IIRC and this is an example of dynamic change.
edit on 11-11-2014 by robi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: robi1000

Ordnance is within the wings airflow, and creates drag, but is too close to the wing to rip off. You're talking about a boom that is going to stick down much farther into the airflow, and be subjected to much more force than ordnance. The closer to the aircraft it is, the less force it's subjected to.

There would be some control issues, but the bigger issue would be the stress on the boom caused by supersonic airflow.
edit on 11/11/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
That's a better answer, but in the photo below, the boom does not stick much more in the airflow than the top of the vertical stabilizer.


KC135 boom

I can't see why this would be a question of torque (distance from the wing). Wouldn't the frontal area define forces and drag on the object? So if something is on a pivot joint, airflow would push it back towards horizontal, but eventually forces would come in equilibrium for that given speed and boom would still be pointing down. I don't know at what angle a refuelling boom must sit to still be usable, that would define the maximum usable speed for a given weight of the boom, if it would be unassisted by some sort of hydraulic system.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join