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.

 

The British FB-23

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
You guys might recall that quite a long time ago, on a thread dedicated to FOAS (The search for a replacement for the Tornado GR.4 by 2018), I mentioned that one proposal was a UK strike version of the YF-23 Tthat (I supposed) was a joint Northrop-BAE venture. The interesting thing about this was that it (my post) predated any public knowledge of the FB-23 by about a year or so and in it I speculated that this would only have a chance of really happening if the USAF also showed an interest. You can imagine my thoughts therefore when the USAF YF-23 proposal was revealed some months later. The problem I had with my post was that I could not find an image of it, which I had previously seen. Well here it is;




The quality is not great but I was amazed to find it again at all!

The most obvious difference from the FB-23 impressions is the Su-32 style seating arrangement, I presume the FB-23 tandem arrangement is the later one and more up to date but this is an interesting image nonetheless.

This is why I wonder if;

a The UK is part of the FB-23 programme and is why FOAS has gone quiet

b The USA liked the original idea and picked it up all on its own and the UK dropped its interest.

c Its all a complete coincidence.

Any thoughts?




posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Well its like the SU-34 Fullback plane, ya know the side by side cockpit like the old A-6 Intruder. There was a proposal for a British F-111K but was never accepted. I guess this is another proposal or a 'what if' print. I doubt this would ever see British service becouse i dont think we will use bombers anymore since they are a bit outdated.

Ok we will use fighter bombers or attack aircraft being more agile and hard to shoot down cheaper to run/maintain. If anyone uses bombers, it would be big superpowers like the US and the RF(Russian Federation). A small country like Britain would have no need really for bomber planes.

The Avro Vulcan was replaced by the Panavia Tornado in the 1980s being more agile, faster and capable of the same job. I do like the Vulcan but i suppose it was too pricey to run.

This British FB-23 would be a beast in service though but i dont think we would get it.

Woudnt the Eurofighter company make a 'Euro bomber' or a 'Euro attacker'?

They may come to make spyplanes 'Euro recon' or a tanker 'Euro tanker' and a stealth fighter 'Euro stealth'.

What else may come up in the future?


jra

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Nice find. That looks really good. If the FB-23 does actually come into exsistance. I sure hope it looks a lot like this. I like the side by side seating too.

I sure hope the answer is a). With the UK and the USA working and funding it together. It should (in theory) make it easier to build. Rather then just having one Country pouring a ton of money into it.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I am skeptical only because I doubt the UK could afford it.

This aircraft would easilly top what the Raptor costs.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I am skeptical only because I doubt the UK could afford it.

This aircraft would easilly top what the Raptor costs.


AMM, I think there is a bit of a clue in the painting (doesn't it look as if its really on canvas, like an oil painting?).

By this I mean that the UK's hope for this plane would rest on a large USAF requirement to make building it financially viable in the first place and then, because of its huge unit cost no doubt, a relativley small number of them for the RAF and a much larger number of smaller and cheaper UCAVS, (look in the background)



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
AMM, I think there is a bit of a clue in the painting (doesn't it look as if its really on canvas, like an oil painting?).

By this I mean that the UK's hope for this plane would rest on a large USAF requirement to make building it financially viable in the first place and then, because of its huge unit cost no doubt, a relativley small number of them for the RAF and a much larger number of smaller and cheaper UCAVS, (look in the background)


I understand the method they would try to use to make it work, but I still don't think it would work.

Put it this way...The USAF wants as many Raptors as they can get, and they are getting less then half of what they wanted.

In addition the F/B-23 would probably cost closer to 200 million a plane then 100...

So say the USAF can afford 50 of them.

How many would the UK be able to get? 10? Would that be worth 2 billion of the UKs budget?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
waynos, I am not sure on what is being presented in this topic, but I do have a related relative question for you concerning the British desire for such an aircraft: Why does not the British simply continue their own stealth multi-role fighter program, which when viewed, seemingly appears to have the characteristics of the FB-23?


Secret UK stealth plane project revealed

Just wondering.
Thanks, waynos.





seekerof



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The picture is from a company called Avpro Uk. They did conceptual design for the MoD. They're most well known for for their EXINT pod which carries personal in pods from the hardpoints of Apaches and Harriers. The company website disappeared a couple of years ago (which is sad because they put out really good wallpapers every month) and I think the company doesn't exist anymore.

I have a book produced by Avpro (Warplanes of the future,1st ed 2000) which descibes it as a FOAS strike platform and UAV leader. The book doesn't mention that it has anything to do with the YF-23 and I doubt this company had enough clout to work with Northrop. The 3 view drawings (which leave something to be desired in this book, this one doesn't have a side view but does have a dimension for it) are signficantly different from the YF-23. The nose is much wider and the wings are thinner. It also states that it is 15.7 metres long and 13 m wide compared to the YF-23's 20.6 m long and 13.3 m wide.

It's a great picture but like a lot of designs from this company it looks good but lacks any engineering design.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I wouldn't call it a pure coincidence considering the ties between Britain and the US, maybe they got to view some ATF proposal sketches and made their own version. Btw if I remember correctly Northrop always said that the production version of the YF-23 would have a lenghtened front fuselage to accomodate a bigger / additional weapon bay, which is consistent with the FB-23 pic that surfaced recently.
I'd say the Brits getting the FB-23 or another contender for the regional bomber concept will depend highly on how things go with the JSF and possibly the Eurofighter. I mean, buying great planes form the US is nice, but maintaining a national aerospace industry can be interesting too. It seems that many European firms will have the opportunity to develop and produce their UAVs, some nationally and some with international cooperation, but the European combat aircraft makers will have to be saved one day. In this view, buying both the JSF and a "bomber" from the US would be disastrous.

Slightly off-topic, but since we're into exotic UK stuff... Would you happen to have some pics of the BAe "SABA" concept ?

[edit on 7-12-2005 by echoblade]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   


You have voted waynos for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


Anything new on the FB-23 deserves a WATS award in my book
j/k

Actually, this was due to all the excellent articles you posted recently.

I like this concept quite a bit, maybe intel can give us a bit more info on this?



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

a The UK is part of the FB-23 programme and is why FOAS has gone quiet

Any thoughts?


FOAS was definitely cancelled during Paris airshow 2005. Instead of this was created new program called FCAC (Future Combat Air Capability) with aim to modify existing weapon systems for roles, defined during FOAS studies. The main candidate is Eurofighter, modified for long range fighter/bomber configuration. All this will be suplemented by final product - new long range unmanned combat air vehicle. It will be developed thank to series of experiments called SUAVE (Strategic Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Experiment).



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Its was June - althought the working group was unofiically broken up in April , it was formally disbanded in June



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I don't there is a big enough justification to spend that kind of money specially if your rich cousin can provide it for you. If the US didn't exist I guess you could make the case for it, but since its right across the pond then spending that much money on a plane that uses foreign technology, because if indeed it was built BAE will only be a subcontractor building mostly American technology.

Like someone said it before, if the the richest country in the world is having money problems with their planes programmes, how would a country that is just a tad richer than California could do it.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Plenty of good points there (and thank you ground zero). Regarding the cancelleation of FOAS and the break up of the team, yes, thats what made me wonder if there might possibly be some clandestine activity behind the scenes re the FB-23. AMM, you points about the cost are duly noted, maybe if, thanks to the F-22 and YF-23, the technology has 'matured' the cost might come down a little? Even if it did though I agree that the actual numbers of aircraft bought by the UK would be tiny, and the operating costs huge.

Regarding AVPRO, I don't think they were ever going to be in the airframe business anyway, you might liken some of their artwork to the way that the firms that make the hydraulic brake leads for a plane use an image of the complete aircraft in their ads, rather than just the part they actually make, like an old ad for Sheffield steel rolling mills with a big picture of the DH Comet on it (the Comet was made from Sheffield steel, but no Comets were built there).

Also seekerof, well reminded there
The objective of 'Replica' if I remember rightly was to reproduce American type stealth technology at minimal cost. Thinking about AMM's point, wouldn't that also be attractive to the US and thus one way the UK would be welcomed aboard the FB-23? Maybe.

And finally echoblade, I will start a new thread on the SABA to try and keep this one on topic




posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Does your signature means reincarnation?


[edit on 10-12-2005 by matej]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Exellent... Britain sure can make planes too... How much would one of these nice birds cost... And what is the top-speed... any thoughts...??



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Britain can certainly think of nice planes (faceted stealth as used in the F-117 was under development in the UK in the 1960'S - one example) but sadly our ability to actually produce anything is a small fraction of what it ought to be


Matej - Yes, I am the reincarnated spirit of the BAC Eagle!!!!



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
How much would one of these nice birds cost... And what is the top-speed... any thoughts...??


Well, I think it is a safe bet that it would be significantly more expensive then the Raptor...After all, the BWII was more expensive then the Raptor, and this is going to be a redisigned, larger aircraft.

As far as speed, that really depends. I know IntelGurl made a post a little while back about how she heard some office talk about a SCRAMJET powered F/B=23. If thats the case, then this thing could cruise at Mach 3+ like the SR-71. If it just uses the regular engines, and only uses 2 of them, I think that a Mach 1.5 cruising speed would seem about right.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
A scramjet will also need accompanying standard engines to get the machine into the supersonic flight regime


Making it hideously expensive



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As far as speed, that really depends. I know IntelGurl made a post a little while back about how she heard some office talk about a SCRAMJET powered F/B=23. If thats the case, then this thing could cruise at Mach 3+ like the SR-71. If it just uses the regular engines, and only uses 2 of them, I think that a Mach 1.5 cruising speed would seem about right.


AMM,

What's this about a SCRAMJET? SCRAMJETS (Supersonic Combustion Ramjets) are for speeds in excess of Mach 8! Are you maybe thinking of a Ramjet. It was a dule cycle turboramjet that gave the SR-71 Blackbird it's amazing speed.

Tim



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join