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.

 

F-22 what about this for an idea!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Watched a program last night about this plane and how it killed 5 F-15s (in training) and they didnt even see it!! How about an autonomous unmanned F-22 raptor with beam/laser type air-air and air-ground weapons that never need replenishing, just send one to any country to take out the entire airforce and ground targets of that country before sending troops in. only problem would be keeping it in the air long enough to do the business. what about nuclear power like the submarines? 5 planes could disable all of iran/russia/china/syria and north korea in about a week!!
wow what a plane that would be!



Tuk

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I think you underestimate radars and sams in russia & other countries.
F-22 is very stealthy, but it will surely be shot down if it wanders in Russian's SAM- network and tries to engage ground targets there..
Same for China and Iran couple of years, if not now.

Other than that (and of course, the fact that there are no laser weapons) it's a quite a good idea.

As for nuclear power in aircrafts, US tried it in during cold war, and came to conclusion that it was way too dangerous, what if that plane explodes midair ? Whole countries could be radiated..



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I agree, nuclear power (in aircrafts) are way too dangerous. And they don't give actual benefit either. And about the Raptor and its stealth, yes it is stealthy, but only from the sides and from the nose. one wa to beat the Raptor would be to use "radar" planes. That would fly at high alltitude. They could catch the Raptor easilly, because it isn't stealthy on the top. And I think that somebody posted this F-15 thing a while ago. It then turned up that the F-15 were the older models, with worse radar.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Kinda off subject here....

About the nuclear powered aircraft....doesn't the US have a nuclear powered Predator? Or maybe I'm thinking of the Popular Mechanics cover a few years back...anyone know for sure?


Tuk

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThorn311

About the nuclear powered aircraft....doesn't the US have a nuclear powered Predator? Or maybe I'm thinking of the Popular Mechanics cover a few years back...anyone know for sure?


I think they were planning to equip UAV with some new kind (smaller, less efficient) of nuclear reactor. But that was few years ago, i don't know if they have scrapped the idea or have they actually built one..



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
thanks for the input guys, but im gutted now
oh well thats pis*ed on my fireworks.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   


(and of course, the fact that there are no laser weapons)


Actually, I read an article a few months ago that a joint U.S/U.K effort had produced a laser cooling system small enough for a pulse laser to be equiped on a fighter jet, if/when it's built, it would have the ability to fire powerful laser pulses at other aircraft, missiles and ground targets, the laser would be powerful enough to do a significant amount of damage.

I'll try and find the link.





About the nuclear powered aircraft....doesn't the US have a nuclear powered Predator? Or maybe I'm thinking of the Popular Mechanics cover a few years back...anyone know for sure?

There was a design for a nuclear plane, I think it's a manned version of a UAV design, and of course larger, I don't remember where I got this picture, but here's the design.

[edit on 1/15/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Paul762,

What you have to understand is that there is NOTHING 'wrong' or 'needing fixing' with the F-22 /as an airframe/, right now.

What is wrong is that we could do with 500 F-22 what 1,763 JSFs never will and that's sustain a 700-1,200nm strike warfare campaign with 3 sorties per day, per aircraft.

And the USAF doesn't want to acknowledge that because to do so would be to admit that they don't need a 'core force' of some 4,600 tactical pilots (out of about 6,000, using 1997 figures). As that is where the 'human factors' element of their power base lies.

Machines can be replaced in a year's time. Men must be trained. And even if they are not really useful at what they purport to do, having them as billeted force construct makes you a better beggar before Congress.

Having said that, the problem with current laser technology is that it's all chemical-oxygen/iodine or 'COIL' based. Which means you have to either dump the waste product or recycle it. That steals fuel volume for both the lasing medium and the regenerative/cooling systems. Even as 'cheap and dirty' solutions (ALQ-199 has enough juice out of that turboram generator on the front of the pod to run a small town) for providing the electrical power and rectification needed to excite said medium are not possible without ruining the Stealth.

That said, the latest JSF variant which the USAF 'says' they want for CAS (Navy big wing with Marine STOVL drive shaft) would be optimal for hauling the socalled 'ATL' or Advanced Tactical Laser to sufficient height to reach a fair distance down or across. The problem here is cash as the JSF is one a losing curve between numbers built and variant complexity as is. Adding more of the latter (in a pittance of



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Supposedly Raytheon has come up with working solid state lasers.

Solid state, of course, has the benefit of not needing any chemical "fuels" as it only needs the electricity which the generator in the jet engine uses to power the aircraft's electrical systems.

They want to adapt it for use in the JSF, as it already has "space" for it. Raytheon's got a 25 kW demonstrator in a pod which is reportedly burning through metal from a range of 3km, with the goal of getting up to 100kW.

Solid state has the problem of needing cooling as its 90% inefficiency or energy wastage goes into thermal energy, but they think they can work that out as well by using the aircraft itself.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
the idea of 1 f-22 armed with lasers taking out the entire chinese and russian airforce is a brilliant idea. however it would be impossibile. the plane would need to be unmanned because a human pilot wouldnt be able to perform at a high enough level for that long. it would also need lasers and a nuclear power plant. none of these are currently available althought they might be in 20 years. also the russians are in my opinion hugly underated.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThorn311
Kinda off subject here....

About the nuclear powered aircraft....doesn't the US have a nuclear powered Predator? Or maybe I'm thinking of the Popular Mechanics cover a few years back...anyone know for sure?


Yah, They thinkning of putting a reactor into the Global Hawk UAV. Instead of a conventional fission reactor, it is focusing on a type of power generator called a quantum nucleonic reactor. This obtains energy by using X-rays to encourage particles in the nuclei of radioactive hafnium-178 to jump down several energy levels, liberating energy in the form of gamma rays. A nuclear UAV would generate thrust by using the energy of these gamma rays to produce a jet of heated air.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Conventional nuclear reactors were far to heavy to even contemplate in an aircraft, the containment vessel itself would have weighed several tonnes.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Having a nuclear powered, laser armed F-22 or UAV would be awesome, don't get me wrong, but imagine what might happen if one crashed?

Having a small nuclear reactor fall out of the sky from 30,000 feet would not be good.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I suppose it would have parachute of some sort, so it only hits the ground at about 10 mph, also would enemies really want to shoot it down and contaminate their own people and land?

[edit on 15-1-2006 by paul762]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
your still all missing the point the technology isnt any where close enough to allow us to have a solitary nuclear powered f-22 taking on the Russian and Chinese using lasers. and by the time we do have it the Russians and Chinese will also have moved on sufficiantly enough so that its impossible for different reasons.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join