Switchblade Concept

i recently saw an article in the newspaper about the U.S. military or was it defense industries?...aniways, im lookin for an article which talks about the either the military or defense industry making a concept of all wing aircraft which i saw a pic of a concept that looks like a boomerang, similar to the B-2 bomber but different. its like folding a piece of notebook paper a couple of times and just make it fly and it flips a couple of times. the article also says the advantage of an aircraft that is all wing that could glide without consuming too much fuel like the conventional aircraft. im hoping sombody has heard or seen the article and could post it up since i want to reread and relook the aircraft.



(thread title changed as per authors request)

[edit on 10-10-2005 by pantha]

That'll be the Northrop contender for DARPA's Switchblade program for a new bomber in the 2020 timeframe. It was in Flight International last week, with pic:

Northrop responds to US Switchblade challenge

Mod Edit: Link Of Great Length Truncated.

[edit on 6/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

thank u Wembley i knew sombody else would see this as well. its pretty cool and very alien wen i saw the pic. why are there openings on the side of the aircraft in the pic? bad drawing?

The basic design reminds me of the Helios Project, that was pretty much just a flying wing.

www.pvresources.com...

Originally posted by Wembley
That'll be the Northrop contender for DARPA's Switchblade program for a new bomber in the 2020 timeframe. It was in Flight International last week, with pic:

Northrop responds to US Switchblade challenge

Mod Edit: Link Of Great Length Truncated.

[edit on 6/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Those actually just look like cowflaps. (The flaps in the front of the wing)

Shattered OUT...

Switchblade. I have heard of this being thought of 5 years ago. It was a pretty interesting concept. But back then it was a swing-wing idea. But the wings swung FORWARD from a lifter to a sleeker, more streamlined thing. I wonder if that projct has matured.

What bugs me is that this thing is really really flat. It may be stealthy but it doesn't look like much of a fast thing. Perhaps it would work as a heavy bomber. But you would need a faster bomber for a strategic in-and-out sortie. I wonder how it would do with carpet bombing or nuking compared to the B-2 though?

An interesting concept, but I think it needs more work.

Switchblade. I have heard of this being thought of 5 years ago. It was a pretty interesting concept. But back then it was a swing-wing idea. But the wings swung FORWARD from a lifter to a sleeker, more streamlined thing. I wonder if that projct has matured.

What bugs me is that this thing is really really flat. It may be stealthy but it doesn't look like much of a fast thing. Perhaps it would work as a heavy bomber. But you would need a faster bomber for a strategic in-and-out sortie. I wonder how it would do with carpet bombing or nuking compared to the B-2 though?

An interesting concept, but I think it needs more work.

Btw, this is clearly a different Switchblade to the one discussed a few years back. Someone may be playing games.

"What bugs me is that this thing is really really flat. It may be stealthy but it doesn't look like much of a fast thing. Perhaps it would work as a heavy bomber. But you would need a faster bomber for a strategic in-and-out sortie."

If you've got sufficient stealth, or other protection, you don't need speed. When was the last time the USAF worried about having a high-speed bomber?

Thats what makes me wonder, Darkpr0.

I am familiar with the project you describe, its the one that looks like the F/A-37 and was probably the inspiration for it, but was it really called Switchblade or is that just a name someone thought up and we've all long since accepted?

It does seem odd that this official 'Switchblade' clearly bears no relation to that programme.

Originally posted by waynos
Thats what makes me wonder, Darkpr0.

I am familiar with the project you describe, its the one that looks like the F/A-37 and was probably the inspiration for it, but was it really called Switchblade or is that just a name someone thought up and we've all long since accepted?

It does seem odd that this official 'Switchblade' clearly bears no relation to that programme.

The project is called 'SwitchBlade". So because there is no real designation for the aircraft, we call it "SwitchBlade".

Shattered OUT...

Hmmm... Intelgurl posted a thread about US future bombers, check this thread, any of these pics look familiar...?

Thread about bombers

Wouldn't an almost completely flat aircraft be able to go quitle fast because of its lack of height and drag? of course I suppose it would have to be quite wide, and this increases drag a lot.

Of course it would also be able to glide a long way, and fly really slow.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The project is called 'SwitchBlade". So because there is no real designation for the aircraft, we call it "SwitchBlade".

Shattered OUT...

Huh?? Sorry I don't understand that at all.

What I am saying is if (as we know) the oblique flying wing programme is called switchblade, wouldn't the 'other' switchblade (the wing reversing VG combat aircraft) have had to have been called something different? They can't both be 'switchblade' can they?

I still can't make what you were trying to tell me fit with my question. sorry again.

[edit on 7-10-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Hmmm... Intelgurl posted a thread about US future bombers, check this thread, any of these pics look familiar...?

Thread about bombers

only the B-2 bomber that bears resemblance to this new aircraft concept. no other aircraft at this time would resemble the concepts that Intelgurl posted.

Originally posted by waynos

Huh?? Sorry I don't understand that at all.

What I am saying is if (as we know) the oblique flying wing programme is called switchblade, wouldn't the 'other' switchblade (the wing reversing VG combat aircraft) have had to have been called something different? They can't both be 'switchblade' can they?

I still can't make what you were trying to tell me fit with my question. sorry again.

[edit on 7-10-2005 by waynos]

Look, simple logic, because we don't know the actual designation for the new Switchblade project, we just call the aircraft Switchblade as it has been referred to in Popular Mechanics magazine.

Shattered OUT...

Ah, I see what you are saying. However, what do you mean by 'we don't know'? I was under the impression that this new oblique wing project had been officially announced under the name Switchblade, didn't Intelgurl tell us that a week or so ago? Or have I misunderstood her?

So, like I said before, if THIS is the REAL Switchblade programme, whats the one we've all been calling Switchblade for years? Or maybe we got it wrong and the much seen patent was actually JUST for the movie prop we know as the F/A-37? Wouldn't that be a shocker?

Hmm, this is an intresting flying wing design, but I like it. If DARPA is involved, there is a good chance that this might be the look of things to come. Northrop would clearly be the "Contractor of Choice" for flying wing aircraft, they have more experience with the design then all of the other US Aerospace Companies put together. Do you suppose that maybe the Pentagon is planning to split the bulk of the contracts beween Lockheed and Northrop? Lockheed will build the fighters, and Northrop build the Bombers, which they are better at then Lockheed.

Tim

Once again for everybody (as waynos wrote). Variable Geometry tailess fighter from Northrop was called Switchblade in Popular Mechanics!!!!

DARPA Switchblade (oblique wing) program is its official name. Here is the link: www2.eps.gov...

Ah matej, good stuff. you appear to be the first person to grasp what I was trying to get at

Originally posted by Wembley
If you've got sufficient stealth, or other protection, you don't need speed. When was the last time the USAF worried about having a high-speed bomber?

I must take exception to this statement.

Speed is always a need. The only reason we don't see all of our aircraft flying at supersonic speeds is because we would have to take away some other trait which is needed for the mission the aircraft is designed for.

Take the B-2. It's subsonic not because it didn't need to be supersonic, but because in order to get the payload and legs to make it a usefull strategic first strike bomber, a flying wing design was needed. The technology at the time didn't allow for it to go supersonic.

As far as the last time the USAF was concerned with a high speed bomber, I would point you towards the B-1, the Valkerie, Hypersoar, the B-3, etc.

Basically, they have ALWAYS wanted a high speed bomber heavy bomber.