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.

 

ATS-2 Project Raven Concept Design Phase

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Now that we have elected a design, I thought that maybe we should study the Raven and see what it needs or should be equipped with, or what we should take out and for any questions any one might want to add. I would like this to be a group effort between everyone.


external image

external image

Shattered OUT...




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I would start with choosing an engine. That will give you an idea of the size the aircraft needs to be. It would also give you an idea of how much fuel is needed. The electrical specifications of the engine would put an upper limit on what avionics and weapon systems could be used.

The second thing I would do is to decide what will be powered electrically and what will be powered by hydraulics. Even fly by wire systems can use hydraulic boosters.

Third would be to decide on a one or two man crew. Again the additional cockpit room required will help define airframe size.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I think that the air duct intake should be more swept, allowing for less wind resistance, while still allowing the same amount of oxygen to travel into the engine. Also, I believe that thrust vectoring, while not the sole component of aerial manueverability, could drasticly increase how tightly/quickly this vehicle could manuever.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I know unmature, 2dimensional thrust vectoring is included in the concept, I'm designing the real thing to have 3 dimensional.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnMature
I think that the air duct intake should be more swept, allowing for less wind resistance, while still allowing the same amount of oxygen to travel into the engine.


This needs to wait until the choice of engine is made. The engine's needs will determine the optimum geometry of the intakes.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Unfortunately, I'm not seeing the image in any of the places it's supposed to be showing up in. Which is important, as I'd like to put in my bids to design a radar system for it. (What I currently have in mind far surpasses any tac-air in the world that I know of, but is gonna cost some money)

Is this a single or duel seater?
do we have verticle/semi verticle control surfaces?
What is the required detection range of the radar?
Are we willing to spend +$7Million on the radar/weapons suite? (or even 3 tiimes that much!)



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
darn, too late to edit. nevermind my proposed budget. No way we're designing a $100M aircraft and going economy on the weapons. It'll cost more than that.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Well Travelar, in my opinion, you're jumping ahead of any of us, I still haven't decided the proper engines to use and already you're talking about adding in RADAR and weapons, I might not even add in that kind of RADAR, this is not the kind of aircraft I Want to see be "The ultimate figher". This concept is only to draw the line at where our understanding of aerodynamics and the mechanic skills stand. I think first we should get to deciding on the kind of engine before anything else. That would determine much of what the aircraft would need to be.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
thanks for reposting the pic, it gives me a much better idea just what you have in mind for this aircraft. From the draft, I'd say you appear to be looking at a mediun/lightweight aircraft, supersonic capable, with a fairly high degree of high altitude manuverability.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
My plan for a powerplant would be two Pratt and Witney upgraded F-135's to put out 40,000 lbs of thrust each.

Both engines will be Thrust vectoring capable for up to 25 degrees in all 3 dimensions.

Now that we have the powerplant down, I hope to get to figuring out what kinds of payloads I will be incorporating into the aircraft.

The aircraft is a heavy Air Superiority fighter that is cost effective and meant for mass export to other nations that want a fighter on the level of a Sukhoi or the Eurofighter and almost as advanced as an F/A-22(if not for the Stealth Aspect).

The most important factor in the end will be RADAR capability and the ability to detect an F/A-22 if at all possible, this fighter must be better than the Eurofighter and Su-30 MK's and be able to detect and combat F/A-22s.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Is it just me (and I could have sworn I have already brought this up in the other thread) that this is going backwards?

Arent you supposed to come up with the aircrafts role and operational requirements first and that dictates the design and appearance of the plane? Not make a pretty lookign design and then define what its for and what its performance expectations?

After all, a military aircraft is not a car.

Just my 2 cents...



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Skippy, contrare to popular belief, I already selected the role it was designed for and I went with that role BEFORE drawing it. Don't worry, I didn't make JUST a pretty looking plane, the concept does have purpose, and was made with a perspective in mind.

So to answer your question, we already went through that phase of the concepts, that's what the Concept phase was for, to see what would fit best.


Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Just a few thoughts and observations. The powerplant you’ve specified makes it very over-powered. The engines are also very large, taking up most of the fuselage leaving very little space for fuel –akin to the Mig25’s design philosophy. So it’d be quite short ranged.

The configuration you have chosen –a high set simple delta wing, is generally unmanageable. Thrust vectoring is naturally a plus, but still you’d probably be less maneuverable than a Eurofighter or Su-35/29OVT.

The forward fuselage styling and internal weapons carriage is presumably intended to add an element for stealth. With this in mind you might want to reconsider the position and angle of the tails. The fuselage/wing root interface and straight-through air intakes which together would make it the radar equivalent of a barn door. Also the fuselage stakes.

I for one am curious about Traveller’s proposed sensor system. Are we talking phased arrays mounted on the aircraft’s flanks?



PS Shattered, if this isn’t the concept phase, why is the title of the thread “ATS-2 Project Raven Concept Design Phase”?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
If we are going air supiriority, then the final product is going to wind up somewhat larger compared to it's engines than the initial drawing, I suppose. Also, there's still time to consider how much fuel we intend to stuff into this aircraft, thus making a rough calculation of effective range= (Fuel carried/Consumption rate)*Cruise speed/2.

I'll start the calculation tomorrow just how much real-estate I'm going to need for my idea of the radar. I'll probrably be asking for an underwing surface, a fairly large pod facing aft, the entire nocecone, and the outboard sides of each rudder.

The concept is a series of phased array antennas, providing (if possible) full global coverage. Search areas will be software limited to +20, -30 degrees of elevation, but 360 degrees of azmith. Full Battlezone awareness I'd like upper and lower wing antennas for tracking aircraft at all times during dogfighting manuvers. Further, the underside antenna could serve a future role in ground attack mode. (software upgrade) Automatic queing can be included from the EW sensors, so the aircraft gets instant track on inbound missiles. Again, that's mostly to do with software.

Remember, He who gets off the first shot,
doesn't get shot at.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
A single, larger boom would be of more use to me. perhaps located between the engine exausts?

assuming we do not need the same resolution in every direction, and we can get away with the shortest search ranges aft, I figure 5 degrees should be an acceptable beamwidth. Which means I'll need to mount no fewer than 400 elements. I left my copy of Skolnik's at the office, but I've got a freind bringing it over tomorrow. I think the minimum spacing between elements needs to be a quarter wavelength, but it could be a minimum of 1 wavelength or more. (none of which matters yet, as I haven't even decided on an operating frequency) As a rough preliminary guess, I'd say I'll need around an inch and a half between elements, so 30x30 inches (and yes, I can mount it on or behind a cone)

For the rudder mounted arrays, the outward cant cannot exceed 60 degrees from vertical. which is actually pretty radical, so it shouldn't be a problem If they must be canted further than that, I'll have to ask for a sizable dorsal spine. Area wont be a problem, as I imagine we'll want those to be quite large anyways.

For the dorsal array, I think I can mount it over the engines, (I'm thinking 1-4 inches thick) That will keep it off the wings which will allow that area to be used for fuel storage, if we desire.

I don't think there's going to be enough room on the underbelly centerline for any array there, not with little niceties such as landing gear and weapons doors. Then again, if I'm getting tail booms to work with, I may be able to keep the lower array out of the wings as well.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Planeman, that design, really, I'm not going to lie to you, isn't what I had in mind, and we're going to sacrifice 3 dimensional thrust vectoring for some RADAR?

And to answer your question, this is the Designing phase of the concept, making it a design and not just a concept. I think that the only RADAR we should have is the Phase Array in the nose Radome and with a few antennae sticking out of it. I don't want to sacrifice manueverability for RADAR capability, that would defeat the purpose, this is why we have AWACS, aircraft designed specifically for this role. Also, I do not believe the plane is overpowered, it will be pretty heavy, and right now it is bigger than the F/A-22 who's engines already put out about 35,000lbs of thrust each and those engines do allow for supercruise. With 5,000lbs more thrust, I believe we can carry more of a payload and have a slightly faster supercruise speed. This would also allow us to make a large wingspan if necessary to accomadate the fuel tanks.

Now, to the internal weapons bays, Planeman, no stealth designed into the structure, this is not a RAS stealth aircraft, nor is it stealth by any respectable means, it may be slightly steatlh, but nothing a good modern RADAR couldn't defeat. The purpose of the internal weapons bays is to provide better aerodynamics for the plane, if the weapons are inside, less drag correct? We want as little parasite drag as possible.

Also, I believe that the nozzles for the engines should be outwards more to allow for full 3dimensional thrust vectoring and the tail fins should stay where they are. I am deciding on whether or not to add carnards, and if so, I would have to figure out the wing dihedral I would put the canards at and which variable angle would allow for the best aerodynamic performance. I might also make the fuselage wider to encompass more gas tanks to give it a bigger range. All in all, this aircraft will turn out to be a pretty big and heavy plane.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Interesting project to start up. It would be interesting to get a UCAV variant going.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I see no need to sacrifice 3-d thrust vectoring for an aft radome. Put the radome in between the more widely seperated exahusts, which won't need to turn as far inward as they do outwards anyhow. (they're off centerline)



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
just got ahold of my Skolnik's, and for a 5 degree beamwidth, and assuming we use a 5 Ghz RADAR, I'll need 64.32 cm x 64.32 cm for the aft radome. Rounding this up a bit for structural reasons, and I get about a 65x65 cm area.

(hey, my 30x30 in guess was pretty close!)




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join