F-19A Specter Stealth Fighter

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Yeah, this is one of the reasons I find it hard to believe a TR-3A exists, as it 'apparently has' curved features, and surely it would have been designed in a similar time-period to the F-117 (??) Unless it was the trial for the new design process?


Well, the F-117 was the first attempt at a RCS stealth aircraft. By the time that the F-117 was finished, the computing power had matured enought to allow for curved surfaces to be used. Basically, assuming that the TR-3A exists, it most likely would have been designed more so in line with the B-2 then the F-117.

As for NG having better technology then Skunk Works...

I am sure they have fields where they would be considered the "leaders" and there would be others where Skunk Woks would be the leaders. As it happens though, I have read in several places that the reason the NG B-2 ATB was chosen over Lock-marts was that it utilized the high voltage leading edge technology (blanking on the technical term). I guess in that case the USAF wanted to see that technology developed. Funny enough, perhaps this was a precurser to the technology that would be utilized in this?




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Well, the F-117 was the first attempt at a RCS stealth aircraft. By the time that the F-117 was finished, the computing power had matured enought to allow for curved surfaces to be used. Basically, assuming that the TR-3A exists, it most likely would have been designed more so in line with the B-2 then the F-117.

As for NG having better technology then Skunk Works...

I am sure they have fields where they would be considered the "leaders" and there would be others where Skunk Woks would be the leaders. As it happens though, I have read in several places that the reason the NG B-2 ATB was chosen over Lock-marts was that it utilized the high voltage leading edge technology (blanking on the technical term). I guess in that case the USAF wanted to see that technology developed. Funny enough, perhaps this was a precurser to the technology that would be utilized in this?


What time period was the TR-3 'designed' in? With F-117, between F-117 and B-2 or alongside B-2?



I think (well, speculate more than think
) that the leading edge technology is ionisation of the boundary layer (not through plasma though), this enables control of the boundary layer, allowing it to remain laminar for longer, and probably more to the point, enables control of the boundary layer downstream of the transonic shock waves, where traditionally boundary layer seperation (with a resulting large increase in drag, and possible BIG problems with control surface reversal occur).

However, as far as I am aware, this technology has never made it into the civil aerospace domain, and work continues on means of controlling the shockwaves produced in transonic flight through other means. Perhaps it does have some impacts on radar reflection/emissions and that is why it continues to remain secret, I cannot see any other reason for it not being at least investigated in the public domain.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Browno

Also if Northrop Grumman have more advanced technology then Lockheed Martin then why does Northrop get turned down all the time?.

Maybe TOO advanced things are TOO hard to repair or maintain? or could be just ahead of our time.
[edit on 12-11-2005 by Browno]


Risk! With cutting edge technology comes risk. Lockheed focus manly on use of older, well proven technology, Northrop useing the cutting edge stuff. Case in Point, the YF-22 VS. the YF-23 (ATF).

Some Key Differences:

Air Frame: The YF-22 is built mainly from alumnun and titanium alloys. Both of these metals are well known in aerospace, and have been in regular use since the 1960's. The YF-23, on the other hand was built using a brand new carbon-based composit. Until the YF-23 was built, that paticular conposite had never been on a aircraft before.

Avionics: Most of the YF-23's computers were fresh out of the lab when PAV-1 took off. A Northrop engineer said "For the first time, we were flying a plane with more computing power then we had on the ground in the rest of the company.

Also, you need to put the decision in the context of the time when it was made. The Air Force chose the winner of the ATF contract in April of 1991. Back in January of that year, the General Dynamics/ McDonald Douglas A-12 Avenger II program was cancelled because of cost overrun, and failure to meet schedual. Congress blasted the Pentagon for the failure of the A-12 Program. With all of this happening, the US Air Force thought the F-22 would be less risky because it used less advanced technology and it was cheaper to start with.

Here's a look at the ATF decidion, Point-by Point:

1.Performance
Both aircraft apparently met the USAF's performance specs. Northrop were a bit faster, longer ranging and stealthier, whereas Lockheed were a bit more manoeuvrable. It appears that the performance margins between both types were not dramatic.

The GE engine performed somewhat better in the trials than the P&W engine, but the final P&W proposal included an enlarged fan and hence higher thrust for production aircraft, presumably equalising the difference.

2.Price
Apparently Lockheed and P&W were cheaper, by how much does not appear to have been published anywhere (anybody know ?)

3.Development Risk
Northrop were penalised in a number of areas. Firstly Lockheed did more aggressive flying (played their politics right by doing it very visibly) during the dem/val program and demoed high AoA manoeuvres and missile launches well in excess of nominal dem/val requirements.

Secondly Lockheed built a very conservative airframe design with very conservative materials, ie an F-15/F-18ish almost hybrid planform geometry using a lot of aluminium and titanium alloys, unlike Northrop who opted for cca 50% empty weight in composites, using a very stealthy airframe geometry, never used before in a fighter.

Thirdly Lockheed did not suffer the development pain which Northrop did with their stealthy exhaust ducts. The lining of the YF-23 exhausts is a laminated alloy structure full of tiny cooling holes fed by engine bleed air. It was apparently rather heavy and may have required major design changes to bring it to production. Also the main weapon bays of the YF-23 apparently stacked the Amraams vertically and the USAF were unhappy about the potential for jams in the launcher mechanism preventing the firing of subsequent missiles.

Northrop, true to their tradition, created a showpiece of the state of the art in technology - ie a high performance truly all aspect stealth airframe with better speed/range performance and bigger weapon bays than its rival. The price of innovation was the loss of the contract, as the YF-23 combines a lot of new ideas which have never been used before. Whereas the Lockheed F-22 is clearly an evolutionary development of current aerodynamic/stealth technology, the Northrop YF-23 is very much revolutionary. Therefore risky.

Similarly, the P&W engine was conservative, whereas the GE engine was a radical variable bypass ratio design never used in production before.

4.Industrial Base
MDC and Northrop have ongoing commitments for the C-17, F/A-18 and B-2 respectively, whereas Lockheed and GD don't really have any real military projects left once the P-3 and F-16 are completely closed. Similarly GE will be building F110s and F404s for F-16 and F-18 production to the end of the decade, whereas P&W only have the F100 for which the biggest user, the USAF F-15 force, is unlikely to seek additional purchases.

Therefore, a decision to buy Northrop/GE could have seen both Lockheed and P&W end up shutting down their military airframe/engine businesses around the end of the decade.

Summary
The US taxpayer is getting the cheaper and more predictable product with some penalty in top end performance and long term performance growth potential.

The USAF however had NO choice in this matter as the Administration killed the A-12 Avenger in January due cost overruns resulting from high risk R&D. By killing off the radical but high performance A-12, the Administration set a clear precedent. The A-12 was considered a very secure project politically because its cancellation would mess up Navy deployment plans for the next decade (the A-6Es are very old, basic airframe design 1958) and cause all sorts of problems.

In comparison with the A-12, the ATF was considered politically expendable as it is seen (incorrectly in my opinion) as a dedicated killer of PVO/VVS aircraft, while the F-15s will remain viable for at least another decade.

As a result, the USAF had no choice than to pursue the lowest risk design options regardless of any other criteria. As it turns out, both Lockheed and P&W were desperate enough to submit lower bids and hence the decision could not have really gone the other way. If the USAF chose the F-23 and it got into difficulties say in 1994 due R&D problems, it would almost certainly die the death of the A-12. Politicians generally seem to have little respect for air warfare strategy.


The above list was copied from the research fourm! It is a point-by-point look at the ATF decision. I hope it answers your questions on the ATF.

Tim

(EDIT: Corrected a spelling mistake)

[edit on 15-11-2005 by ghost]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
www.bunkertours.co.uk...

This links to a picture painted on the wall of a US Airbase. Could be someone being inventive… Could be more. You guys have probably seen it before though.

Dan



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Yeah, the plane on the left is based on some Lockheed ATF artwork from the 80's, the original version has been published in a few books.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Yeah, the plane on the left is based on some Lockheed ATF artwork from the 80's, the original version has been published in a few books.

Oh yes, I have seen that painting before on the bunkertours site.
That aircraft painting is an F-29 Retaliator(In a videogame)but it was really a picture of what people thought the YF-22/YF-23 ATF fighters looked like. Similar to the F-19 stealth fighter case when the public thought it looked like the Testors/Monogram models, But in 1988 the truth came out and people realized both models were just a cover up.

Waynos, Go to the military and government projects board, There is a new thread about the Royal Navy CVFs i mentioned to you before.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Yeah, this is one of the reasons I find it hard to believe a TR-3A exists, as it 'apparently has' curved features, and surely it would have been designed in a similar time-period to the F-117 (??) Unless it was the trial for the new design process?


*Oh, and I assume you mean Northrop had more powerful computers at their disposal, and not 'more advanced technology than Lockheed', it kinda could read as a slight on Lockheed.


Right, Northrop had more powerful computers and was working with more advanced technology. No Jab at Lockheed was intended, just a statement of facts. Lockheed chose to go with a more proven approach to ensure that they got a contract. Northrop, on the other hand, was testing highly experimental designs. the difference boiled down to company philosiphy: Lockheed usually sticks to the Low-Risk approach, while Northrop is always trying to push the state of the art.

Case in Point: In 1951-52, Northrop was trying to develop a digital Fly-By-Wire system for the YB-49. The computers were primitive by today's standards, but Northrop said they got it to work. However, the Air Force was very skeptical of flying an unstable, computer-controlled aircraft at that time, and went with the B-36. (There was also politics involved, but that's another topic.) Today, most planes are design with this technology built in.

Northrop was founded with the idea of pushing the State-of-the-Art. The first aircraft they ever built was the highly experimental N-1M Flying wing. Jack Northorp had to start the company over from scratch 3 times before it was a sucess. Today, the company is a lot more conservitive then they once were. Look at a list of some of there projects from the 1940's and 1950's (Many failed, but it shows you how they were thinking):

X/YB-35\YB-49: Flying Wing Bomber The X/YB-35 was prop powered, the YB-49 was a jet

XP-56 Silver Bullet: This was a tailless, pusher-prop power, fighter made from welded magnesium.



XP-79 Flying Ram: A flying wing Jet powered interceptor.



JB-1 Bat Bomb: An experimental intercontinetal guied cruse missile.



Above are a pictures of a few of the projects that Northrop was working on in th late 1940's and earily 1950's. This is the reason I made the statment about Northop having more advanced technology. Lockheed didn't really start trying radical designs and really pusing the cutting edge until Kelly Johnson built the Blackbird in the 1960's. Lockheed is really advanced, and can give Northrop VERY strong compatition, but Northrop still holds the leed as the end of the day.

Tim



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Here you go kiddos!

www.army.cz...

They think it's real... Though I can't read Czech.. I used a website language translator... also I can't find this page in their 'english' version of the website. I didn't look hard either.

Also, take note of their layout (this is a common military type diagram):

www.army.cz...

I reconize this set up. During my time with the military, I would be in the box in the lower right hand side of the U-2...
... it is weird they would use known aircraft and equipment (Awacs, U-2, TAOC, Sat) and then use a 'fictional' aircraft, unless, maybe, it's not fictional.

And for the F-19... if it was used (number and/or plane), it's not in use now, and I don't think it's really a big deal. Black projects aren't given a designator right away... usually a project name... and besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can recall any black project that really went 'in order'... the f-22... f-35 are not 'black' projects... oh wait, maybe the B-2


Here i'll name a few: U-2 (U?), A12/SR-71, Boeing Bird of Prey did that even have a designator?, CL-400, D-21/M-21, Have Blue
,... do I have to say F-117... Oh here is a good one! CL-282 & MX2147 (Bald Eagle).. blah blah blah

After doing all this, I am even more convenced of a previous statement I made about the F-22 F-35 projects....

They are a clear diversion of a project going on. While we are staring at the right hand, they do the magic trick with the left.

And to sum up my chatter:

www.globalsecurity.org...
and better yet
www.fas.org...

Though they talk about recon... the diagram previous shows the TR-3a engaging the ground units while the U-2 and the AWACS gather Recon...

Maybe it does support the F-117 as stated in the article. Not as Recon, but as an attack aircraft...



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   


You have voted ghost for the Way Above Top Secret award.
You have two more votes this month.


Thank goodness for at least some people understanding the political and economic -- as well as technical -- reasons for a weapons platform's existence.

At MD/Boeing, I worked on the YF-23 proposal -- which lost. I worked on the JSF proposal -- which lost. And I even worked on the McDonnell Douglas AHX proposal -- which lost to that gold-plated dog, the RAH-66.

I participated in a lot of wins, too, which means I still have a job and a pension coming up Real Soon Now.

An aircraft -- or any other major defense system -- does not lose because it is the technically inferior offering. It loses because the customer determines that it is not what they wanted, i.e., it does not fulfill the customer's needs.

And the cost, logistical, and political aspects of a major defense system are every bit as important -- and, in the totality, even more important -- than the systems technical and warfighting capabilities.

Ghost seems to have figured that out.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street


You have voted ghost for the Way Above Top Secret award.
You have two more votes this month.


Thank goodness for at least some people understanding the political and economic -- as well as technical -- reasons for a weapons platform's existence.

At MD/Boeing, I worked on the YF-23 proposal -- which lost. I worked on the JSF proposal -- which lost. And I even worked on the McDonnell Douglas AHX proposal -- which lost to that gold-plated dog, the RAH-66.

I participated in a lot of wins, too, which means I still have a job and a pension coming up Real Soon Now.

An aircraft -- or any other major defense system -- does not lose because it is the technically inferior offering. It loses because the customer determines that it is not what they wanted, i.e., it does not fulfill the customer's needs.

And the cost, logistical, and political aspects of a major defense system are every bit as important -- and, in the totality, even more important -- than the systems technical and warfighting capabilities.

Ghost seems to have figured that out.


Oh wait a minute.. unfair! I thought it was this thread, but I guess not. I clearly posted (in another thread) the YF-23 was more 'powerful' then the F-22, but lost because of production cost.. but also I have had Engineer friends who have rolled their eyes at that and said it was more political... bias... cough...

But I must say that was a great post



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
rmatrem, I think the LHX (Light Attack Helicopter) competition which ended in 1991 gives some good insights about figuring out what the Gummint wants, as opposed to what the Gummintr needs (or what we think the gummint needs).

I was a new hire at McDonnell Douglas in 1990 and was a Volume Captain for the proposal. We were teamed with Bell, and our only competitor was the Boeing-Sikorsky team.

Both competing helicopters were designed to take advantages of lessons learned in the building, fielding, and upgrade paths of both the Bell AH-1 and the McDonnell Douglas AH-64, both of which were then in service (and still are!). McDonnell/Bell bragged about the fact that both of the attack helicopters in the inventory were made by these companies, while neither Boeing nor Sikorsky had any experience at all in building attack helicopters.

Ours featured the NOTAR technology, resulting in a lower aural signature and maintenance costs, while theirs had the fenestron tail rotor developed by the French. Ours was faster, both were similarly stealthy. We were more nimble, and the weapons loads were the same. Ours was far and away the better whizzbang, which could outperform the Bad Guys' aircraft six ways from Sunday, and everyone knew that.

But we lost; and, in retrospect, it shouldn't have come as a surprise.

The Army wanted an airplane with a short logistical tail, and we proposed neat stuff. the Army wanted a plane with low maintenance costs, and we explained how our stuff was neater. The Army wanted a well-managed program, and we were so incredibly neat.

Hello! the Army didn't want "neat"!

Ironically, after the merger, I ended up working for what used to be the Bad Guys, and now the Boeing/Sikorsky "winner", the RAH-66 Comanche, was "my" airplane. Unfortunately for us, it was too heavy, too complex, too expensive, and too late -- and it was cancelled. The AH-64 Apache had been upgraded until it had just about all the goodies the Comanche was supposed to have, plus it could carry a lot more ordnance.

And the US Marine Corps, God bless 'em, are still flying the Bell AH1 Cobra!

Final Score in the Great 1990's Helicopter War:

McDonnell Douglas 0
Bell 0
Boeing 0
Sikorsky 0
US Army 0
US Taxpayer 0

Moral: Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be aerospace bureaucrats.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by rmatrem

Here i'll name a few: U-2 (U?), A12/SR-71, Boeing Bird of Prey did that even have a designator?, CL-400, D-21/M-21, Have Blue
,... do I have to say F-117... Oh here is a good one! CL-282 & MX2147 (Bald Eagle).. blah blah blah


BTW: The CL-282 and the U-2 are the same Airplane. CL-282 was the Skunkworks issued design number, while U-2 is the designation issued by the Department of Defense.

Tim



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Although the F-19 is fake, here are some nostalgic cold war era adverts:

www.nostalgica.nu...

www.back2roots.org...



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
Although the F-19 is fake, here are some nostalgic cold war era adverts:

www.nostalgica.nu...


I had that game on my 128k Spectrum +2a. It wasn't too bad either.

There is a picture of a selection of planes somewhere on ATS which includes a funny boxed wind tanker, and a black triangle that is allegedly Aurora. I've done a search, but can't find it. However, I do remember thinking that it looked very much like the F-19.

Found it:
www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk...

[edit on 23/11/05 by Implosion]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I believe the F19 exists, under the name F119D, the US is still hiding too much from the public. I will update this post later.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSecreto
I believe the F19 exists, under the name F119D, the US is still hiding too much from the public. I will update this post later.

Considering it's only a sentence, one can only hope!


But anyways, it's very interesting that it's under the designation F-119D, as I've never in my life heard of such a designation. Of all my hunting, never have heard of that. Nor could I find anything about the F-119D designation with a quick search, might require a deeper look.

But anyways, I believe the aircraft "Aurora" exists, but only in a time long passed. Did it exist at some point? I believe so, is it still in use today? I highly doubt it if it were every real.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSecreto
I believe the F19 exists, under the name F119D, the US is still hiding too much from the public. I will update this post later.


F119D?
The last known designation used for a aircraft in the century series was F-117 D, which I believe was Tacit Blue!

Now, there is an F-119! However, the F-119 is a jet engine, not an aircraft. the F-119 powers the F-22 Raptor. No offense, but could you have confused the century series of jets (F-100 through F-117), with the new generation of military jet engines (F-101 through F-120). It would be an easy mistake to make.

Tim



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
The funny thing is as there was a game by Microprose called F19 Stealth fighter, there was a game for Sega Genesis called "Air Diver" and it had this screenshot which looks like stealth plans, i have the image. The funny part being it looks identical to the Italeiri/Testors kit, except the tips of the wings are sharper and the cockpit looks more like the F-117's. The specs are similar to the post given on this thread, even down to the Mach 5 top speed. Coincidence? Who knows? It is a cool game though, lol.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
F119D/ F19D








posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DanS
www.bunkertours.co.uk...

This links to a picture painted on the wall of a US Airbase. Could be someone being inventive… Could be more. You guys have probably seen it before though.

Dan








top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join