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.

 

VTOL Black Triangle UCAV Concept

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
It sounds to me it might be another fan boy's renders of some conceptial aircraft.

Just look at their comercial aircraft, that's enough in my book to raise the red flag.

How can such a small and unheard of company afford such a program?

It sounds to me like another Stavatti...no offense to Intelgirl, unless she has some rumours from within the defense industry.

I am highly skeptical on this programme, it's too good to be true really.




posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
How can such a small and unheard of company afford such a program?

Rolls Royce Aerospace Div, Lockheed and Northrop have money and/or technical assets backing the project.


It sounds to me like another Stavatti...no offense to Intelgirl, unless she has some rumours from within the defense industry.

Rumors? yes there are rumors.
The difference here is that Stavatti drops names like Raytheon and Pratt & Whitney but these companies don't have a clue who or what Stavatti is - on the other hand, it is not SonicBlue Aerospace who is dropping names, it is Rolls Royce Aerospace mentioning SonicBlue.


I am highly skeptical on this programme, it's too good to be true really.

...Skeptical and rightfully so, as there are hundreds of advanced tech projects like this that get funding from the gov't as well as the main players in the industry, only for the tech that is developed to be canibalized for more feasible / more conventional programs.

If it does not become a reality, chances are the lessons learned from the SonicBlue project will be stairsteps ascending to a more practical application of the technology - on the other side of the coin however is the fact that there are some incredibly unconventional UAV systems being developed and they are going into production with "unconventional funding". (ya gotta love Darpa and the AFRL) So strange futuristic shapes and ideas do not mean that a program is only a pipedream.

Let's face it, UAV's are all but turning the aerospace industry upside down - as companies that were virtually unknown just a year or two ago are springing up with major gov't funding for UAV development.
Because of this current climate in the defense aerospace industry, it is probably prudent to realize that the size of SonicBlue Aerospace and the fact that it is unheard of has very little to do with the company's ability to get funding from the gov't or other larger aerospace companies who want a piece of the action should something really develop.

A word on Stavatti...
If Stavatti was genuine (and in my opinion it's a fantasy website and nothing more) it would forget about building a "6th generation" fighter and trying to compete with the "Big 3" (Boeing, Lockheed & Northrop-Grumman) and instead turn their attention to the growing UAV market where they could make a fortune and grow into at least a minor player in the industry.
But they won't because Stavatti is nothing. zero. zilch.



[edit on 3-4-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Heh, thanks for clearing that up, After Stavatti I was in a sense traumatized, it's hard for me to believe anything ambitious these days even when this stuff comes from you.

I am sorry for doubting you on this, I should have known


There's a chance this program will become black or something and we'll never hear from it again...right? that'd suck but it's something you can always expect.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   
everyone keeps mentioning lasers, but never develops that idea, so i thought i would.

Where would the lasers fit on the craft?
What range would the lasers have?
would the lasers be designed for air to air, air to ground or both?
would the lasers be powered by the same source as the engines and if so would firing the lasers reduce the range of the craft?

Justin



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Well the only real aircraft we can compare it too is the 747 Airborne Laser (ABL). That is a Chemical laser that gets its energy from the chemical reactions of huge tanks of chemicals to create the energy. I think the ABL was designed with power output somewhere in the 10MW range so its considerably stronger then the planed 2-5MW of this VTOL.

Its clear this VTOL would use a solid state laser (powered by electricity) these tend to be less powerful then their chemicals brothers but dont require huge tanks of chemicals.

As for range and such the ABL your talking lethal laser range in excess of 200 miles. For air too air or ground to air or both lasers weapons can really be used for both there is no real problem in doing that. But they are far more effective on Airborne targets because of the nature of airborne targets being that they are weakly armoured.

The lasers we have now are pretty useless for heavy armoured targets like Tanks right now, but are perfect for thin skin planes and missiles. Weak armoured ground targets like perhaps fuel tanks could be taken out.

Not to say that will always be true in the future there is really no theoretical limit too how strong you can make a laser. With enough power there is nothing stopping you from making a laser that would cut through a MBT like butter.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
Where would the lasers fit on the craft?
What range would the lasers have?
would the lasers be designed for air to air, air to ground or both?
would the lasers be powered by the same source as the engines and if so would firing the lasers reduce the range of the craft?
Justin

Until the schematics of such a craft are released we cant know...But it would probably be located under the craft, near the front.
Depends on there power, the ABL is 1MW (not 10), and it can take a missile out of the sky 250 miles away (its theoretically powerfull enough to shoot the ISS out of the sky). and if this thing has over twice that power available...it would make one hell of a weapon...and it would have enough punch to burn a hole right threw an armored vehicle.
Th lasers would get there power from the spinning turbines (which means it couldn't fire while going supersonic).



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Depends on there power, the ABL is 1MW (not 10), and it can take a missile out of the sky 250 miles away (its theoretically powerfull enough to shoot the ISS out of the sky). and if this thing has over twice that power available...it would make one hell of a weapon


If this plane has twice the power of the ABL then what is the point of carrying on develouping the ABL? y dont they just give this program more funding?

Also, how agile would the laser be? for example would it only be able to shoot big slow planes (transport/tankers) down or would it be able to shoot down UCAV's manouvering at high speed down.

Justin



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
If this plane has twice the power of the ABL then what is the point of carrying on develouping the ABL? y dont they just give this program more funding?

Also, how agile would the laser be? for example would it only be able to shoot big slow planes (transport/tankers) down or would it be able to shoot down UCAV's manouvering at high speed down.

The ABL is just a technology demonstrator...only one is going to be made.
I wont believe its really being built until I see some real pictures of it.

The ABL is made to be able to shoot down missiles, but more during there boost phase (which is the slowest). The laser (of course) moves at the speed of light, the only hurdle would be the trackingsystems able to keep a lock on...what ever it is you want to shoot down.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Seems like the holes in the wing and fuselage would get in the way of achieving mach+ speeds. Try driving at 140mph with your windows open. And how big isare the motors driving the fans?! with that thin wing. They say they'll have a prototype flying in 5 years but the engine isn't developed. Seems highly unlikely.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by maxtor]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   
[edit on 11/10/2006 by prototism]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Hmm, I have my supisipons of this program. The think I find weird is that an unknown company seems to be the "Team Leader" so-to-speak. To add to it, their useing industry giants like Lockheed and Northrop Grumman as team members and mojor subcontractors. Sorry, but I can't imagine Lockheed and Nothrop subcontrating for a small, unknown company!

Also, technology is an extention of science: How would you make a plane that operates In Violation of the Basic Laws of Physics?


Case in point: the exposed life fans with no covers, If the craft really reached Mach 6, as claimed, those fans would be damaged.

Oiless Engines? How do they work with out seizing up?

If this is true, it would be Major advancement.

Good find, but this story just has Too many Red Flags for me to buy it.
(However, I think you deserve appause for the effort involved in finding this.)

Tim



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Intelgurl,

Thanks very much for the info and link! That is one cool idea and concept. I look forward to seeing and hearing more about this and others like it. There has to be other designs in competition with it, wonder what they look and perform like? By the way, were there dimesions for this, the length, etc..?

Peace, Mondogiwa



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   


Case in point: the exposed life fans with no covers, If the craft really reached Mach 6, as claimed, those fans would be damaged.


Tim, I wonder if the fans could be made to change pitch as wing-borne flight is achieved so that they form a flat surface at high speeds, this would protect them from damage and improve the drag characteristics of the UAV.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Hmm, I have my supisipons of this program. ...
Sorry, but I can't imagine Lockheed and Nothrop subcontrating for a small, unknown company!

Also, technology is an extention of science: How would you make a plane that operates In Violation of the Basic Laws of Physics?


Case in point: the exposed life fans with no covers, If the craft really reached Mach 6, as claimed, those fans would be damaged.

Oiless Engines? How do they work with out seizing up?

If this is true, it would be Major advancement.

Good find, but this story just has Too many Red Flags for me to buy it.
(However, I think you deserve appause for the effort involved in finding this.)

Tim


A couple of things I need to point out here.

The exposed lift fans have rotating panels like a camera shutter that open up and close as needed.

The oiless engines apparently deal with magnetizing parts of the engine so that they are actually repelled and float freely inside a confined space. This doesn't mean that there is simply no oil being used in any part of the engine, just the usual lubrication and cooling oil requirement are supposedly circumvented by magnetics.

This is a research and development idea and may or may not come to fruition but it does demonstrate a forward thinking - out of the box mindset which does attract investment entities like DARPA.

Also the Mach 6 thing is perhaps too lofty of a goal, but once again, a decent project plan that stretches the envelope of technology attracts DARPA funds like a bee to honey.

Also, regarding subcontracting giants like Lockheed and Northrop, it's done everyday as they are simply service providers.

Not meaning to sound like a commercial, but no one else can give an upstart company the expert resources and assured quality that the big 3 aerospace giants can give.

The higher cost of working with the giants is well worth the security and peace of mind of knowing that your investment dollars will see a maximum return.

There is a perception that the big 3 do not do well with tight deadlines and tight budgets, but that is the nature of the business and a smaller less experienced service provider will do even worse with the same dealines and budgets.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Thanks Intelgurl!

You highlighted a lot of good points that I wasn't aware of. I though about your explaination of the Lubrecant Free engine. It got me to wonder, is this something like an "Air Barring"?

In case anyone isn't sure what an Air Barring is, it works by forcing a high pressure bubble of air between two peices of metal. One peice is in effect "floating" within the other. There is no metal to metal friction because the two peices of metal neve actually touch.

Tim



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I've got additional information on this "black triangle" UCAV, among other things it is called the "Fussion".
A complete rundown is available at this link: Sonic Blue's "Fussion" UAV

[edit on 11-15-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Very starnge indeed! The document talks about a deep strike platform.

Sorry, but I jst can't picture this weird looking thing dropping bombs.

Tim



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Very starnge indeed! The document talks about a deep strike platform.

Sorry, but I jst can't picture this weird looking thing dropping bombs.

Tim

Predators will be dropping SDB bombs soon. The Scaled Composites Proteus is capable of dropping bombs - why is the Fussion such a stretch?
If you're having trouble with that, you'll really have issues with the Fussion carrying a solid state laser capable of taking out hard and soft targets.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
Predators will be dropping SDB bombs soon. The Scaled Composites Proteus is capable of dropping bombs - why is the Fussion such a stretch?


Unless you're going to hang the bombs from the wing, where do you put them? I don't see anywhere on the Fussion that looks like you could put a bomb bay. It's not the UAV issue, it's the airframe design of this paticular craft.

Tim



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join