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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:
NR

posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The F-117 has flown over some of the most heavily defended territory in the world and ONE has been shot down. And that was because of tactics that they should have learned were stupid in Vietnam. They flew the same planes, on the same routes, at the same times every day. You do that and sooner or later they're going to get lucky. Not to mention that from what I heard, they hit it with a gun which started a fire, and once the skin on the F-117 starts to burn it's NOT going to go out. Once you get a nice flaming target, it's hard to miss.



No but tell me this! if its Stealth... than why did it get picked up by a old rusted up SA-3??? sorry but no such thing as stealth even a Russian A-50 AWACS tracked it down.




posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Target data generated by these tracking radars is passed to the battalion's LOW BLOW trailer-mounted fire control radar. With a maximum acquisition range of 110 km, the tracking range of this I-band system is between 40-85 km, depending on target size and altitude. The system can simultaneously track six target aircraft and guide one or two missiles. Improved LOW BLOW radars include TV cameras with a range of 25 km to provide the fire control team with the data needed to perform a command guidance intercept in a heavy ECM environment. If the missile fails to intercept it would be commanded to either change trajectory or self-destruct.
www.fas.org...

The SA-3 is an optically guided missile. Once the missile crews knew they were coming, they could use the cameras to look for it, and either guide a missile into it, or alert another site it was coming.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

NR
sorry but no such thing as stealth

That has to be the absolute consternating thing i've ever heard.

Stealth simply means undetected.

I think you mean radar stealth...but even then...thats still a less informed comment. Your right NR, The US is just wasting its money on a fantasy...wasting it on stealth Aircraft and Ships...Please.


Mod Edit: Civility.

[edit on 18/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
No but tell me this! if its Stealth... than why did it get picked up by a old rusted up SA-3??? sorry but no such thing as stealth even a Russian A-50 AWACS tracked it down.

WOW, no such thing as stealth huh?

This is coming from one of the world's smartest engineers, Ph.D, went to college for 10 or more years, vigorously studdied the possibilities of something called "Stealth"(which vaguely means undetected), and has concluded that Stealth aircraft just is not physically possible. Lets all trust your word!


Shattered OUT...


NR

posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by NR
No but tell me this! if its Stealth... than why did it get picked up by a old rusted up SA-3??? sorry but no such thing as stealth even a Russian A-50 AWACS tracked it down.

WOW, no such thing as stealth huh?

This is coming from one of the world's smartest engineers, Ph.D, went to college for 10 or more years, vigorously studdied the possibilities of something called "Stealth"(which vaguely means undetected), and has concluded that Stealth aircraft just is not physically possible. Lets all trust your word!


Shattered OUT...




Anyways like i said your so called stealth bomber was knocked out by old soviet SAM and your still claiming it like nothin happened. Honestly, I think if an F-22 got close to a SAM without detecting it than it will for sure can knocked down.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR

Anyways like i said your so called stealth bomber was knocked out by old soviet SAM and your still claiming it like nothin happened. Honestly, I think if an F-22 got close to a SAM without detecting it than it will for sure can knocked down.

There was only one F-117A ever shot down(to my knowledge, I may be wrong on this one), and even then, it was covered in bullet holes, it was obvious that the AA on the ground SPOTTED VISUALLY where the Nighthawk was, sprayed it down with bullets, and as the shell is pierced, it now becomes visible on RADAR. This means it can be targeted by SAMs and shot down.

Think about that one?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
No but tell me this! if its Stealth... than why did it get picked up by a old rusted up SA-3??? sorry but no such thing as stealth even a Russian A-50 AWACS tracked it down.


Stealth does NOT mean invulnerable - stealth simply reduces the range an aircraft can be detected at.

BTW, the F-117 was shot down because the same flight plan was used repeatedly (one of the biggest no-nos in operation planning). This coupled with an informant giving the time of attack to the serbs allowed them to fill the sky with AA fire, thus bringing it down.

The F-117 was NOT shot down with a missle, and is a THIRTY year old design anyway. Of course technology will eventually catch up to it. It is the very first generation of stealth. The US is on it's third operational stealth aircraft right now, with the JSF soon to be the 4th, and is also now working on a HYPERSONIC PLASMA STEALTH strategic bomber, which would represent a 3rd generation of stealth (F-117 being the first, curved surface radar including the B-2 F/A-22 and F-35 being the 2nd, and plasma/active stealth being the third).



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I still love the look of the YF-23.

And for all that do, here's the link to the very large image of two YF-23's in flight. From the NASA Dryden photo collection:
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

And the occasional odd aircraft design, what appears to be one of the competitors (Grumman) from the NATF(ATA) in 1988:
aircraftstories.free.fr...

I think:
One of the main reasons YF-23 lost the competion, was that it was too stealthy. It incorporated advanced concepts that made it risky for the USAF to endorse. It was believed at the time that the YF-22 could "add on" in the future, and get started with less risk and less cost...

Edited to remove YB, oops, YF... it was a long day...
[edit on 18-10-2005 by ZPE StarPilot]

[edit on 18-10-2005 by ZPE StarPilot]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
I still love the look of the YF-23.

I think:
One of the main reasons YB-23 lost the competion, was that it was too stealthy. It incorporated advanced concepts that made it risky for the USAF to endorse. It was believed at the time that the YB-22 could "add on" in the future, and get started with less risk and less cost...


[edit on 18-10-2005 by ZPE StarPilot]

COUGH*YF-23*COUGH

Umm, too stealthy? Right... I think the biggest deciding factor was PRICE.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The SA-3 is an optically guided missile. Once the missile crews knew they were coming, they could use the cameras to look for it, and either guide a missile into it, or alert another site it was coming.


Just to add to this, the F-117 downed was flying a flight path that F-117s had been night-flying for a number of missions. That is a big no-no in night air-ops and doctrine, being that the flight path should have either rotated or changed per night sortie. You never run the same flight path, over and over...





seekerof



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Mirthful Me - In the future, DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS. just because you can, doesn't mean you should.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
With murcielago on that last remark. His comments were aimed at the opinion in the previous post, not the person who posted them. Free speech and all that. To water down someones opinion in this way smacks of political correctness gone too far. If a person cannot handle straight talking that is NOT downright personal they need to go out and grow up a bit IMO.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Just to add to this, the F-117 downed was flying a flight path that F-117s had been night-flying for a number of missions. That is a big no-no in night air-ops and doctrine, being that the flight path should have either rotated or changed per night sortie. You never run the same flight path, over and over...
seekerof


Agreed, part of this plan was probably to dodge between known radar installations that should and could have been eliminated.

In regards to the F-117's stealth, NR was actually pretty close to on target.

Stealth doesn't eliminate the RCS, it just reduces it, so true stealth doesn't exist (at least in a publically known craft).

In fact, with the angles present, I would say that with the right radar system the F-117 could be triangulated quite easily.




[edit on 10/19/05 by redmage]



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by NR

No but tell me this! if its Stealth... than why did it get picked up by a old rusted up SA-3??? sorry but no such thing as stealth even a Russian A-50 AWACS tracked it down.


For the record, the F-117 that got shot down had a malfunction short before it was lost. Sadly, stealth technology is very fragile. It works, but it is easy to mess up. I don't know exactly what happened to the F-117 that was lost, but here are some possibilites:

1. On of the Bomb bays could have been open or improperly closed.

2. Shapnel from a previous AAA explosion could have hit the plane damaging the RAM coading.

3. Maybe one of the landing gear doors wasn't all the way closed.

4. A screw on one of the access hatches might not have been proerly tighten after preflight. (A loose screw ruined one of the RCS tests on the second Have Blue test plane.)

5. A Maintnence Tech might not have resealed one of the access hatches properly with RAM tape.

Any of the above senarios could have easily been the cause of the F-117 being shot down. Stealth works, but the technology is fragle and it doesn't take much to mess up. If any of the above things happened, the F-117 would become visible on Radar like any other plane. Stealth isn't perfect, but it does work!

Tim



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by Daniebut whats the latest bomber russia has?

The Tu-22M Backfire I believe is there current "best" bomber, and I dont know of any future bombers that are in the making...I'm of course not counting concept drawings...What country doesn't have a million of those.


Darkpr0 - It is most deffiniatly about money...it always is. Just because you dont think you will go to war, doesn't mean you wont, better safe then sorry.

TSR2005 -
I'm a little confused on your post, but from what I understand of it, I dissagree.


Due to its best in class aerodynamics, range, speed, and load, the enormous Tu-160 would certainly rank as the most capable soviet bomber. It is in fact one of the largest aircraft of any kind and is capable of carrying loads up to 88,000lbs! Wingspan is about the same as a B-52 and it outweighs a B-52 by 120,000lbs. Its a beast of an airplane. However maintaining something that large, fast and complicated cannot be cheap.

The conversion of the YF-23 to a bomber sounds interesting. Scaling up an existing design requires so many adjustments due to material and aerodynamic properties that it might be more effective to develop a fresh design. Chances are instead of the yb-23 a being a scaled up version of the yf-23, its a slightly modified version of the yf-23 airframe allowing higher wing-loading and more room for bombs. Bombers don't have to be maneuverable but the superior stealth features of the yf-23 should make it a better choice for conversion to a bomber than the f-22.

As for stealth bombers, their real strength is in combat against less technologically advanced enemies.

[edit on 22-10-2005 by orca71]

[edit on 22-10-2005 by orca71]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
As far as stealth not existing or the B-2 only working against less advanced militaries, did anyone actually READ the reports on the F-117 radar tests?

One of the tests they put the model up on the post, and the radar operator told them it must have fallen off because they weren't detecting anything, when they went to look, he said "Oh wait, I have it now." They looked out the window, and a big bird had landed on the model.

During a flight test, they overflew an I-Hawk battery, and the operator told them "This stealth thing doesn't work, look I found him." They didn't tell him that the stealth had flown overhead over a minute before, and he had picked up the T-33 chase plane. They never even had a clue that it had been in the area, let alone had gone right over their heads.

And that was the FIRST Generation stealth. Imagine how much farther we've gotten now.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As far as stealth not existing or the B-2 only working against less advanced militaries, did anyone actually READ the reports on the F-117 radar tests?

One of the tests they put the model up on the post, and the radar operator told them it must have fallen off because they weren't detecting anything, when they went to look, he said "Oh wait, I have it now." They looked out the window, and a big bird had landed on the model.

During a flight test, they overflew an I-Hawk battery, and the operator told them "This stealth thing doesn't work, look I found him." They didn't tell him that the stealth had flown overhead over a minute before, and he had picked up the T-33 chase plane. They never even had a clue that it had been in the area, let alone had gone right over their heads.

And that was the FIRST Generation stealth. Imagine how much farther we've gotten now.


The story you mentioned about the plane on a stick brings up a question. Was the model of the F117 being moved somehow? Doppler radar depends on movement to pick up an object. In otherwords a decisively non-stealth Hummer would have just as much chance of being picked up as the model of the F117 or anything else as long as it was stationary.

As for claims by the military, they say a lot of things to get public support for a project or to build excitement. That is why they release this kind of "information", its carefully planned marketing. History teaches that when it sounds too good to be true it usually is. Remember how we were also told the Patriot missile was 95% effective and how effective the Missile Shield program was? How much did we spend on Star Wars?



[edit on 22-10-2005 by orca71]



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
"An FB-23 could replace the F-117 in the long run and keep our force viable well into the 21st Century. " == ghost

That would be my first bet. The F-117 airframes are ageing and they have been used a lot in combat. They have worked
very well for the modern conflict scenarios. Flew the most dangerous missions and most numerous in some circumstances.
I suspect they will be replaced, not just retired without a backup. And if it were me, I would want faster-supercruise, stealthier,
and longer range for the replacement. (Thus eliminating the F-35)
If I were in marketing, I would want to redesign the landing gear. Remember that movie with the classy stealth on the aircraft
carrier. The Navy could use something too especially after the A-12 Avenger II disaster. Will the F-35 do is the question.
The STOL version seems a bit risky to me.
For those who want to referb the F-111, there are serious technical issues there. The crew escape system and the swing wings
are the main concern. So much so that the module escape system it inspired for the B-1 died in testing.
It would not be the first time the competition loser became a winner. I still remember the early fly-offs between the F-16 prototype
and that odd looking sorta T-38 looking thing (from the rear anyway), Its redesign and winner status is of course the F-18 Hornet.

For Roniii259, can you say where those interesting F-23 pictures were taken ?

"Doppler radar depends on movement to pick up an object." == Orca71

In a way, so does radar imaging.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
NR - Whats up with the Tupac avatar...when you location says 'Iran'?



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
NR - Whats up with the Tupac avatar...when you location says 'Iran'?


Iran is 15 years behind the US.

Thus, he just heard 2pacalypse Now for the first time, and will be awstruck when he hears All Eyez On Me.




top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join