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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Remember, the F-117 is Low Observable, but it is NOT Invisible. I think the F-117 might be reaching the twilight years of it's carrer.

The F/A-22, and thus the FB-22 isn't invisible either

The F-117 continues to get upgrades, and they're still working on the RAM. I just dont think the FB-22 would be much more stealthier than an F-117.

Anyway, Janes put the info back on their website; jdw.janes.com...
Does anyone have a subscription?
AWST also have an article about it: www.aviationnow.com...




posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
The F/A-22, and thus the FB-22 isn't invisible either



You missed my point entirally! I NEVER said it was. My point was: The F-117 is becoming vunerable to enemy defenses becaues it stealth defense is base on outdated Technology!

We need to replace the F-117 before it reaches the point that it no longer offers our people protection. The F/A-22 and FB-23 concepts use much newer technologies, so they will be able to stay a step ahead of the defenses much longer than the F-117 could.

Tim



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I think the envisioned mission for the notional FB-23 would be more towards targets that are strategic in nature, not tactical. There are already enough tactical aircaft in our inventory that can either already do the job or be upgraded or modified to do the job. The FB-23 would probably be used against high-value targets in far-away places, like nuclear power plants, airfields, high value naval targets, and command centers.

One thing that no on has mentioned is this: the USAF has a long history of requiring a nuclear strike capability for large tactical aircraft. The DoD has always desired to maintain a man-in-the-loop nuclear option, and our bomber fleet provides this. The B-52 is obsolete, the B-1 is nearly obsolete, and the B-2 is too expensive and too slow. The FB-23 would provide a nuclear strike capability, with a man in the loop, that could be anywhere in the world in short notice. A major selling point for an aircaft such as this would be that it could possibly bolster the nuclear triad.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
becaues it stealth defense is base on outdated Technology!

The F/A-22 is entirely outdated technology too, it's been on the drawing board for two decades now. The F-117's RAM continues to be researched and upgraded.
I really dont believe the F/A-22 (or FB-22) will be that much stealthier. Remember that the heath of the F/A-22's engine exhaust can't be cooled and spread out like on the F-117. Even with super-cruise an F/A-22 will be much easier to pick up with an infrared targetting device, IMHO.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Here is the same class model of FB-22:





posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
You need to understand how stealth works. Its not just exhaust. The F-117 is 25 years old. Lloyd Newton whom I know was the commander of the first 117 commander ( and the first black thunderbird ) will be the first to stand up and tell you that the radar return from the F22 is smaller than the 117. There is NO aircraft that compete with the Raptor right now. Fire and forget............



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
the radar return from the F22 is smaller than the F117.

That's the F-22 you're talking about, not the FB-22, which will be a lot bigger, and will thus have a larger RCS.


There is NO aircraft that compete with the Raptor right now. Fire and forget............

I absolutely agree on that, but a bomber can't 'fire and forget', it needs to be much closer to the target, than a modern fighter.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
That's the F-22 you're talking about, not the FB-22, which will be a lot bigger, and will thus have a larger RCS.


My understanding of RCS is that size does not necessarily dictate a RCS of a plane. Ben Rich also mentiones this in his auto biography. By that the F-117 should have a smaller RCS than the B-2



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
the radar return from the F22 is smaller than the F117.

That's the F-22 you're talking about, not the FB-22, which will be a lot bigger, and will thus have a larger RCS.


I'm sorry, but I must dissagree with this statement. Larger size does not automatically equate to a larger RCS. Take the Y/F-23 for example...It is bigger then the Raptor, but yet had a smaller RCS.

The RCS has more to do with the shape of the aircraft, or else the B-2 would have a larger RCS then the Raptor (which it does not).

The FB-22/23 would be redisigned in large part around it's new mission objectives as a bomber. Thus, manueverability can take a backseat to top speed and, if the designers want, a smaller RCS.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Question - Is the F/B-22 and the X-44 manta the same thing? I believe the Manta is just basically a F/B-22 with no tails....correct?

If the F/B-22 will be tailess then [although larger in size] its RCS would be smaller then the F/A-22.

Zion - Fire and Forget - You can do with smart bombs, gps ones...not lasers.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Question - Is the F/B-22 and the X-44 manta the same thing? I believe the Manta is just basically a F/B-22 with no tails....correct?

If the F/B-22 will be tailess then [although larger in size] its RCS would be smaller then the F/A-22.

Zion - Fire and Forget - You can do with smart bombs, gps ones...not lasers.

The X-44 MANTA is not the same as the FB-22, the X-44 MANTA was an experimental aircraft based off the fuselage of the F/A-22 fighter. It was built to experiment with Tailess Stealth RAS.

The FB-22 if anything was based on the MANTA, because the X-44 has been in development before the FB-22.

I may be wrong, but that's what I've gathered so far, anyone have any real accurate info?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Good News --- Thanks Intergurl

I refer all to my 13-7-05 Posting 153425 -- FB23-RTA Proposal
The two PAV's remain MIA to date according to several sources reponses to this post
Please keep us up to date on NG's FB-23 work



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
i wonder when we will get to see a better design painting to cg picture of the fb-23 i cant wait!



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
the radar return from the F22 is smaller than the F117.

That's the F-22 you're talking about, not the FB-22, which will be a lot bigger, and will thus have a larger RCS.


There is NO aircraft that compete with the Raptor right now. Fire and forget............

I absolutely agree on that, but a bomber can't 'fire and forget', it needs to be much closer to the target, than a modern fighter.

I think it was the fact that you said the 22 is obsolete.
"The F/A-22 is entirely outdated technology too, it's been on the drawing board for two decades now."
Its not outdated the plane has been upgraded as it has been developed as far as i know just like the typhoon.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Sorry this is such a late reply. In terms of some posts about the timeline between Aurora and F-23, as I stated before, F-23 may be just a technology demonstrator for systems and technology for Aurora that could be shown to the public with out giving away what it's real purpose is. The ATF program had been investigated since the early 80's, a similar timeframe as Aurora. However, as we know, sometimes black project are produced faster than white projects. So, of course Aurora would fly before the ATFs. But here's a question. The requirement called for using some unique systems, like the thrust vectoring. Why didn't the F-23 have that in it's design? A move like that instantly kills any chance of being picked. A framed canopy. A big radar reflector and killer of stealth. Something the F-23 had. Another deal killer? And despite using a main landing gear based on the F-18, the cost was actually higher. So, why were they given the money? To compete? I highly doubt it. F-23 had another purpose and it wasn't as a fighter. It uses compression lift to get an extra boost of high speed for it's thrust, something I have not happening to the F-22. It is a simple and effective demontrator aircraft for Aurora. If that doesn't sound plausible because of the time line between the two, well, if you worked with such a project, wouldn't YOU want to confuse people? And besides, anyone hear of Copper Canyon? All that money wasted for the cancelled X-30 NASP. Dead, right? Up pops X-43 HyperX. Just like the X-30, just smaller. So where did all that money go? I think Copper Canyon may have actually flown already, and sometime in the future we'll see it emerge as a 'New' design 'Based' on the X-43, instead of the other way around. I think Aurora/F-23 got the same treatment. The F-23 has too strange of history to simply rule it out as just a good, but not good enough design. Something else is going on with it. The story out of Boscome Down brings the Aurora and F-23 a lot closer together.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
hey Shattered Skies -- gotta say i love the name and the avatar



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
TSR2005 you bring up some very good point about the aurora and the 23 being conected and by all accounts i hope your correct. I differ form most people here when i say i prefer the F-22 cause of some of the reasons that you stated againest the 23, but i didn't like to see a project with so much other potential dropped. Maybe there was a reason. Does anyone have information on where the 23 protoypes disappeared too?


jra

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TSR2005
The requirement called for using some unique systems, like the thrust vectoring. Why didn't the F-23 have that in it's design?


Northrop didn't inclued them, so that they could save weight, and to help achieve better all-aspect stealth, especially from the rear. I believe with the bottom part of the engines being covered, it makes it a lot harder to detect the heat exaust from the ground.


A framed canopy. A big radar reflector and killer of stealth.


Was it really that big of a reflector? I believe that YF-23 had a really small RCS. If the canopy frame was that big of a "stealth killer". I'm sure they would have done something else.

As for the Aurora/YF-23 connection. I still don't see it. I don't think we'll truly know until the Aurora is finally revealed, if it does indeed exsist. Otherwise all we can do is speculate.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by TSR2005
The requirement called for using some unique systems, like the thrust vectoring. Why didn't the F-23 have that in it's design?


Northrop didn't inclued them, so that they could save weight, and to help achieve better all-aspect stealth, especially from the rear. I believe with the bottom part of the engines being covered, it makes it a lot harder to detect the heat exaust from the ground.


A framed canopy. A big radar reflector and killer of stealth.


Was it really that big of a reflector? I believe that YF-23 had a really small RCS. If the canopy frame was that big of a "stealth killer". I'm sure they would have done something else.

As for the Aurora/YF-23 connection. I still don't see it. I don't think we'll truly know until the Aurora is finally revealed, if it does indeed exsist. Otherwise all we can do is speculate.

The YF-23 was a very unstable design thus making it extremely maneuverable once mated to fly by wire technology. The 23 however, was both stealthier and faster than the F-22 but the 23 lacked the manueverabilty of the F-22 with it's vectored thrust.

Why didn't Northrop go with vectored thrust? Most likely because the unstable airframe/fly by wire combo without vectored thrust rendered it almost as nimble as the 22 but far less complex and more stealthy in both the radar and IR spectrums.

If a "framed canopy", as TSR2005 calls it (it's actually a two-peice canopy) is such a radar reflector how is it that the F-117A and the B-2 have "framing" in their canopies/windshields and yet they are "stealthy"?

It is believed by many that the manueverability factor and the past history of Northrop's ATB (B-2) project which was exponentially overbudget were the main determining factors in the F-23 losing out.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Though the FB-23 concept is confirmed, my belief is that it will not be developed or go into serial production. The time is now for such to be taking place. The longer that the FB-23 sits undeveloped, the less valuable it becomes as newer technologies are brought forth/emerge. The time frame for developing and producing the FB-23 is now, while F/A-22 production line(s) are still open. As intelgurl can vouch for, the closing of a production line and then reopening it is a very expensive endeavor, especially when applied to a project such as this.

Then there is the question of funding a project/development such as the FB-23 and then justifying it before the various Congressional and Senate sub-committees and allocation panels [ie: GAO, etc].

I also believe that the FB-23 will become a non-issue when taking into account the future block updates that will be added to the F/A-22. The FB-23 should have been something considered at the time that the F-35 JSF was being considered. Furthermore, I do think that the FB-23 would make a fine replacement for the B-1's. Hell, we are not even taking into account UCAVs and thier rapid evolution....









seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join