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.

 

FB-23 concept confirmed

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TSR2005
Ladies and gentlemen...I believe, after many years of speculation, we will finally see Aurora for the first time. Based on reading I have done, mainly on the crash at Boscombe Down back in the 90's, the description of a two seat strike aircraft based on the F-23 fits very well with that description of Aurora.


Wasn't the Aurora (if it really does exsist) built and tested before the YF-23 came around? If so, then how is the Aurora based on the YF-23 design? Isn't the Aurora also supposed to be a spy plane and not a strike aircraft?


Given it's history, F-23 was more likely a demonstrator for Aurora. At least one prototype of FB-23 must have been flying for some time.


Again, I thought the theories about Aurora came before the YF-23. I don't think there is any connection between the two aircraft. Also Northrop is only just starting to work on concepts of the FB-23, so there would be no flying prototype yet.




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I remember hearing about Aurora back in the late 80s, as a replacement of the SR-71 as a recon platform. The first I ever heard about it being a strike platform was here. As far as I know it was a Skunk Works project. I'd be pretty impressed if they unveiled it in a fighter competition, and then they lost. You'd think that if they had been flying it since the 1980s they'd be able to at least win the competition.

Another thing to remember is that the aerodynamics are COMPLETELY different for a hypersonic airplane and a fighter. They would have had to completely redesign it to convert it to a fighter or strike platform. Look at the SR-71. It's a long flat platform designed for high speed. It makes long sweeping turns due to the speed it flies at. Even at low speed it can't make any tight manuvers, because of the shape. If you're going to have a hypersonic platform, the shape would be similar, and there's no way you could enter it into a fighter competition. Don't forget that the FB-23 is based on the F-23 design.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Janes has confirmed that Northrop Grumman has submitted the F/B-23 concept to the USAF's Interim Bomber program.

This would put it up against X-45D(larger than C), F/B-22, B-1R, BWB 'arsenal ship' and others.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
The B-1R isn't really in a competition to become a new bomber though. The USAF will simply put some of their budget into upgrading the B-1B fleet. They won't have to compete against the others. If they decide to even keep the B-1.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The B-1R isn't really in a competition to become a new bomber though. The USAF will simply put some of their budget into upgrading the B-1B fleet. They won't have to compete against the others. If they decide to even keep the B-1.


Oh they'll keep the B-1. They've realized over the past 4 years just how important the B-1 really is. It's become the backbone of America's long range bomber fleet, even though there are more B-52s.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Yeah, because the B-52s are older than almost all of the crews flying them. Which is why they are going to convert them all to J models where they can do stand off work, instead of taking them into the combat zone.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   
this is sweet the YF-23 never "looked" like a fighter to me anyways but the YF-23 looked like a FB! THe Raptor and BlackWidow3(?) roming the skies will be sweet I am not so hot about teh FB-22 thats too many contracts for one company the FB-23 should be the one picked! I bet tis already flying is some form at lease the concept either be in the air or a computer!


Thanks IG the USAF would get a big boost from an improved once edging edge BWII but what would/will they call it? black widow 2/3 or something different?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Cool
I always liked the way it looked i do not know if it was a better fighter than the F-22. it just seemad that it could kick some.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
external image

I hope it gets funding instead of the FB-22.
F-23 was always listed as going faster than the F-22, It would make a great replacement for the F-111.

Mod Edit: Image Size



[edit on 20/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
see what i mean that dont look like a fighter, its nose reminds me of the sr-71 and looks to be more suited to be the FB-23 than the FB-22!

Give me the FA-22 and the FB-23!!



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Finally! The FB-23 might be coming to an Air Force Base near you. It's about time the F-23 (now the FB-23) Black Widow II got the place on the flight line that it deserves. With the B-2 and the FB-23 working together, we will have a real 21st century bomber fleet.

Side Note:has anyone noticed that when it comes to stealth, Northrop builds the bombers and spy planes (B-2, TR-3, THAP(secret strike aircraft), ect.) while Lockheed builds the fighters. Since this is a Bomber, I'm putting my money on Northrop!

Tim



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
What is the lead time from initial design to in service? IMO , a need has been shown ,that something in this class is needed NOW (and no its not a strike eagle) ; There are many F1-111F`s and FB1-111A`s roting in the boneyard , they could be refurb`d and put into service for the next 10+ years to cover the gap - In GW1 it was the good old `vark that dropped virtually ALL of the of the precision stores , and `plinked` some tanks as well - a job which it wasn`t exactly designed to do
.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
What is the lead time from initial design to in service?


Well, lead times can vary drastically. For an aircraft of this general size and type the range is about 5 to 15 years.

Tim



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
so my comment about refurbing F1-111`s still stands



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
F1-111s? You mean F-111s methinks. Not a bad airplane for its time. Sad they chose to retire the EFs though. Kinda stupid too.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
yeah lol - was a DOH moment i think


There are F111G`s in the boneyard (ex FB111A) and i just cannot believe they are just sitting there! An aircraft , very much needed NOW


The wait for the FB23 is going to be long - the time for the vark to return is now



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
What can I say man score one more for the brain trust at ATS. Good job FredT and all the others that followed this and noticed the missing birds.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
yeah lol - was a DOH moment i think


There are F111G`s in the boneyard (ex FB111A) and i just cannot believe they are just sitting there! An aircraft , very much needed NOW


The wait for the FB23 is going to be long - the time for the vark to return is now







AUS the land of F-111's
USA bring them back



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Sounds nice... it looks a bit like the YF-23...



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Another Northrup plot to extract money from the Federal government.
They might get as far as a prototype (remember the F-16XL?) but there is no reasonable excuse for building such an aircraft.
Any Democrat on either the house or senate armed services commitee will point out:
1) We already have a variety of aircraft capable of penetrating enemy air defences and any foreseeable improvement of such for some years to come.
2) We have uninhabited vehicles for the same purpose that eliminates the risk of pilots being killed or captured.
3) We would be spending billions for development of such an aircraft.
4) We would be buying so few as to make them too expensive per copy to risk on doing a limited role, bombing high risk targets.
I could go on, but why bother? No chance you will see a squadron of these parked anywhere soon.



new topics




 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join