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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
As cool as this plane, and the project sounds. I just dont see this comeing to be.
Also if somethinglike it is ever built, I dont see it haveing capibilites anywhere near what was described.
Aside from that, great thred




posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
IG,

>>
A new UCAV concept being developed may very well visually resemble and have similar flight characteristics of the "black triangles" so prevalent in UFO-lore.
>>

The best UFO UCAV is one which uses a circular plenum to direct air or 'some' kind of thrust out fenestrated side panels in a true disk. The circular plate design helps with structural loads and volume utilization and is furthermore the only way to be the darting agility (at least in the nominally longitudinal axis) often attributed to these craft.

>>
The VTOL concept is called the "Unmanned Combat Hybrid Armed Vehicle" and will utilize an oil-less Rolls Royce turbofan engine system that propels the craft horizontally and powers hybrid-electric VTOL lift fans as well as powering sensor arrays and directed-energy weapons (ie solid state lasers).
>>

Snicker. Is it a motor driven by a battery or a battery charged by a motor...

>>
This particular vehicle concept could match the "best of both worlds" scenario so covetted by the DoD in it's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Those two worlds being rapid strike and endurance over the target area.
>>

Doesn't take a helluva lot there to improve on what we've got. Frontal area decreases, along with basic (delta=deep roots and long chord) 'shaping for fuel on the front side, lift on the back' will get you a sustained Mach 1.5 drone airframe. It then being a matter of designing a microturbine that can handled the repeated thermal cycles of supercruise (materials and blade shapes) before 'down clutching' to a very low rpm endurance mode on a fixed core. If anything, I imagine this is what the 'oilless' and 'EM or Air Bearing' is in reference too as you treat entire stages like stators and simply pull them from the pressure cycle. True variable cycle costs a LOT of weight and complexity in throat sizing and bypass duct.

>>
According to aerospace giant Rolls Royce sources the "Unmanned Combat Hybrid Armed Vehicle's" flight speeds could reach upwards of Mach 6 or 7 should the turbofan be augmented by combined-cycle propulsion (ramjet cycling to scramjet for supersonic speeds and beyond). Technology for on-station endurance exceeds 30 hours for a persistent area denial presence or for ISR functions, but that time will eventually increase to 3 to 7 days.
>>

Crap. How far out are you likely to be from your troops on the ground or ships at sea? If it's more than a 1,000nm I doubt if you are 'in theater' anyway, at which point the ability to apply fires and target tactically is not the force commanders but some suit back in the 5 wall asylum.

If you can fly out 1,500km at 700-800knots, hold for 5-10hrs and come home in another 90 minutes or so on a 10-15 million dollar airframe, you have every platform out there BEAT. Whether they are VTOL, CTOL, prop or jet driven.

No need to pretend this is Aurora in a toy poodle scaled approach. Just match the French Fast/Slow followon to SPERWER.

>>
Defense industry companies associated with this concept include Rolls-Royce's Libertyworks, Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed and SonicBlue Aerospace.
Very little information seems to be available on this concept beyond Sonic Blue's web site, various defense contractor email exchanges and one or two aerospace publications.
>>

Yeah, yeah, and the quality of propoganda put out by company X is a function of the empowered brain trust inside the ivory sanctum's walls. Lunchmeat is already behind the eightball on unmanneds and will likely be the laughing stock of the aerspace world when the F-22/35 programs are finally 'done with them'. If they survive at all. Rolls Royce has been caught out attempting to leverage F120 technology in a scaled-for-50,000lb fighter application and so are equally bleeped without a pot to piss in or a program to 'contribute' to. And NorGrumman is about to become a second tier aerospace company known for their avionics, HALE UAVs and possibly building a French Tanker. Sonic Blue is riding the wave in the hopes that nobody notices how out of place the monkey-in-a-suit looks in a room full of other 'corporate types'.

So, let's get real shall we? If the air vehicle weighs 12,000lbs empty, it /hardly/ needs a bloody 5,000lb engine installation rated to 40,0000lbst now does it?

Looking at the size of that endcap nozzle with it's fixed 2D vectoring, I am reminded of the Harrier II forward nozzles. How much thrust does each one of those put out? F402-RR-408 is what, about 26-28Klbst? Divided by four that's 7,000lbst. What engine in the size range dictated by the fuselage nacelle creates that kind of thrust? It's got to be something civil (no weight margin for a burner hit on fuel fraction, no condi nozzle, among other things), probably off a biz jet or maybe a trainer. Which 'rather rules out' the F120/136 technology base unless they're going scaled (which is basically a NEW engine and we all know what that mean$).

If you are pushing 7K out the back, that means that the rest of 'electric fans' have to generate _balancing thrust_ in the amound of at least 7K from the front. Because you're gonna want to have a 2,000lbst margin for weight growth. At least. WHY THEN are all the 'big plenums' in the rear of the wing?

Let's talk about fans within wings in fact. Delta or no, you need SOME structural framing in there and with that as a given, you probably have eaten your entire wing in terms of 'what they're intended for' which is to _haul gas_. The idea of a 'shutter like' cover is also ridiculous because to iris closed means to have an external (in the wing itself) set of doors, top and bottom and this not only violates the integrity of the plenums themselves, it also makes a monkey out of us in terms of the close spacing on multiple such. And then there's the problem with stealth 'coatings' aside, (SWAM weighing so much that it takes two STRONG men to lift a five gallon bucket of the stuff) do you /really/ want a door system which depends on multiple overlapping articulated gaps? And how much penalty do you pay for these when you hit Mach whatever with a piece of metal thin enough to nest atop multiple others on an _outside in_ basis? Okay, so let's assume you REALLY MEAN that these 'fans' change pitch to lie flat and go from blades to doors. That's simple enough. Except it's not. Because if you mount them centrally, they will never rest level with the surface (you can close the hole but not the depression). If you mean that you rotate them from a hingepoint in the plenum wall, them you have problems with the hub connection which is traditionaly the strongest point on a fan. And you STILL cannot fully close off the well because the fans may fold up or fold down but they won't do both without conflicting with each others geometry paths. A simple door in the bottom of the wing that could cover multiple 'fans' without all the articulation reliability problems may be part of the solution, possibly amplifying keel area (directional control) and providing LID options as well. Turn them crosswise into the airstream and you have blown flaps if not TVC.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
...

Except these are not 'fans'. I mean LOOK AT THE PICTURE PEOPLE. Those look like burners on a gas stove with support stanchions for the central pot-support element. Is this actually a RALS installation? Is this even a mass:inertia drive system at all? One of the reasons UFOs are so often associated with 'bright lights in the sky' is that supposedly they burn or spin some 'terribly rare element' fast enough to create electrogravitic forces. Is that what we are seeing here? I have just enough zero point theory to question it. Indeed, I see _no_ reason to mention 'UFO agility' in relation to what is a very basic VTOL only system capability. Unless it's one company/consortia/country bragging to another 'sotto vocce' about what their latest efforts entail that is NOT based on conventional ideas of propulsion. Of course, it could just be some idiot concept artist that can't draw fans too.

Let's go back and talk about tails though. The lateral 'fans' in the bent wingtips would mean little or nothing to highspeed flight. They can't be uncovered and they aren't big enough to compete with aerocontrols in terms of TONS of dynamic pressure. Yet even on deliberately no-tail testbed aircraft like the X-36 and later X-31 configurations, you often see thrust vector augment more conventional controls. Why then is the only axis that the TVC operates in the vertical one (and limited posi-pitch at that)? WHY are there _no aero controls visible_ on that wing?

CONCLUSION:
It's junk. There's not enough post lift forward to balance what is coming out the back. There is not enough total volume or weight to make the ascribed engine workable. We don't NEED a Mini-Aurora to double or triple the capabilities of our airborne intelligence gathering systems. ISR being so poorly served (and so little threatened) as an INVENTORIED FLEET that the only function a highspeed-ingress/slowspeed-loiter system gives is that of being able to remove the transit phases by which a prop or subjet spends about 2-5hrs just there-and-back-againing. I'm sure I've missed a dozen other problem areas (optics and inlet as a single-chin effect subject to vibrations and shock cone area comes to mind) but it doesn't change the fact that 'as advertised' someone in our glorious military industrial conspiracy is once more throwing a lot of money at...Junk.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
CH,
You certainly are making a lot of assertions considering we aren't even looking at a schematic but a simple 'artist's rendering" of what the vehicle could look like.
The guys behind this effort are 2 MIT professors (aerospace & astronautics and electrical engineering professors) plus the man behind the X-33 & X-34 composite body structures.
I think at worst this effort will end up being bought up buy a larger company - and canibalized; in particular the HILAPS concept. But to trash the entire concept based on an artists rendering showing the fans in front to be smaller than those in back is just a little humorous.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Iggy,

HILAPS is HOTOL repackaged. The Brits didn't make anything of that one either and indeed, the very idea that the F136 and 'eventual' SSTO has /anything/ to do with a VTOL UCAV is just deceptive advertising in action.

If you want to have something new, you have to pay for it with real R&D not Wilbur and Orville garage startups.

The Brits, who are perenially defensively broke, have 'concept artist' ideas which they scam off people within the widest possible spread of potential sucker-bait 'could also do this!' reasoning because _they're JUST in it for the money_.

I expected rather more out of 'just another DT blogger' than to play mouthpiece for something so obviously, VISUALLY, not what it was stated to be. As 'just another DT blogger', you disappoint me.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Kurt (CH),
How fortunate for me that I'm not the least bit interested in your expectations of me, or my blog - and I still say that basing an entire 12,000 + word disertation solely on an artists rendering is foolhardy at best.
But for entertainment's sake I'll throw you this bone to chew on as I'm sure you'll have even more caustic comments to make.
DARPA and AFRL have already committed money to this in 2007. There's some cannon fodder for ya - have fun. I await another 10,000 words of opinions and milspeak.

...Your pal, Iggy~





[edit on 11-17-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Here is the real VTOL but it probably wouldnt go mach 1.
jnaudin.free.fr...
jnaudin.free.fr...
check out the experiments this guy has there free energy, lifters, etc...
maybe a concept, try and build your own.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   
IG,

>>
How fortunate for me that I'm not the least bit interested in your expectations of me, or my blog
>>

Point Being: You are NOT 'just' a blogger. You are a working professional within the industry. Understand madame, that I seldom waste irony without meaning. Sometimes however I do mistake the level of inherent comprehension as to what is or is not too abstruse to deduce from the context.

>>
- and I still say that basing an entire 12,000 + word disertation solely on an artists rendering is foolhardy at best.
>>

Not when those who are wowed by your moniker buy into the hyperbole that you offer up because you neglect conservative commentary of _readily visible_ shortcomings in the design by which to 'moderate the enthusiasm' of the ignorant.

>>
But for entertainment's sake I'll throw you this bone to chew on as I'm sure you'll have even more caustic comments to make.

DARPA and AFRL have already committed money to this in 2007. There's some cannon fodder for ya - have fun. I await another 10,000 words of opinions and milspeak.
>>

As you request then-

Electric drive as alternative to heavy shaft or gas driven lift fans may well be something worth investigating in a cruise missile sized Fast-Slow UAV seeking true VTOL capabilities. I would set such motors in (blended) sized-to-a-balanced-post sponsons outside the central fuselage void to conserve volume for fuel and MEP and provide natural mounting points for aero controls. I would probably even consider a scissor wing to give a better aspect ratio variability and thus L
at slower speeds while covering the gear wells and perhaps lower plenum nozzles 'for free' at higher ones. If placed atop rather than below the fuselage, such a system would additionally offer the potential of reducing deckspot footprint when folded after shutdown.

Given a bulged rear body sufficient to support a tailored 800-1,500lbst engine _without TV nozzle_ (heavy and unnecessary, if you simply use a simple throat closure and core bleed plus hotpipe to augment the lift fans) plus a well planned inlet system, you can 'get there from here' to a Mach 1-1.5 recce capability out to say 500nm and 3-5hrs loiter.

Easy.

Something which may become very important by 2010 when we will start to see destroyer class ships with as many as 60 possible cheap-cruise and upwards of 500 guided 6 inch rounds, _designed_ for the inshore fight. But simply unable to target for themselves because they don't have a carrier in the their back pocket as 'organic airwing ISR attached'.

Whatever the final intent may be, do SAY WHAT YOU SHOW AS IT **REALLY** IS. Don't over-magnify the capabilities with idiocies of assumption about Mach 6 and UFO like agility that the image as illustrated simply does not support with today's technology.

In particualr, do not either _understate_ the engineering required to put a 4,000lb engine producing 40,000lbst in a 12,000lb airframe. Or overstate the performance benefits to be accrued from the attempt.

Instead, set a spec, that MAKES SENSE for the known gaps in capability that you CAN fill with technology now presently available.

Anything less than that is begging the natural scepticism of a common sense approach to engineering to turn absolutely vinegaric indeed on the hubris of some 'artist and his concept' trying to wooleye us with a blatantly improbable design.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
If I remember correctly, I think I've seen that artists rendition in a Popular Science from a few years ago. The article was on UCAV's and UAV's.... it might have been the issue regarding the press release on Boeing's Bird of Prey UCAV from a few years ago. I'll check and see if they have it archived or something. Seems to me though that the article Intelgurl linked 'borrows' the image.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
IG,

>>
How fortunate for me that I'm not the least bit interested in your expectations of me, or my blog
>>

Point Being: You are NOT 'just' a blogger. You are a working professional within the industry. Understand madame, that I seldom waste irony without meaning. Sometimes however I do mistake the level of inherent comprehension as to what is or is not too abstruse to deduce from the context.


Actually, the fact that "I'm not the least bit interested in your expectations of me, or my blog", has NOTHING to do with mine or anyone elses level of comprehension, but argumentively it was a nice slide from the real point into a personal insult. Something you are all too fond of doing as your ATS "warning" would suggest.

So, the real point here is your total disregard for the interested layperson who wants to understand, and you know they want to understand; but do you put your words in everyday plain english for them?
Nope.
You go merrily blithering away, in milspeak, Kurtspeak and going down rabbit trails like someone's senile old grandmother, the whole time holding anyone in disdain who finds your 10,000+ word posts just a bit too hard to understand, or should I say "too abtrusive".

Arrogance.

Pure arrogance.



>>
- and I still say that basing an entire 12,000 + word disertation solely on an artists rendering is foolhardy at best.
>>

Not when those who are wowed by your moniker buy into the hyperbole that you offer up because you neglect conservative commentary of _readily visible_ shortcomings in the design by which to 'moderate the enthusiasm' of the ignorant.

I doubt anyone is "wowed" by my moniker.

What I try to do is find obscure open source information and bring it up for discussion. Anyone can go to AvWeek and post the latest progress on the Raptor or the F-35.

And if my "hyperbole" is worthless crap, it's not your conservative commentary that I have a problem with, it's your incessant hammering away at anyone who dares to speak up and not see the world as you do.

Again I say, arrogance.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Iggy,

>>>>
How fortunate for me that I'm not the least bit interested in your expectations of me, or my blog
>>>>

>>>
Point Being: You are NOT 'just' a blogger. You are a working professional within the industry. Understand madame, that I seldom waste irony without meaning. Sometimes however I do mistake the level of inherent comprehension as to what is or is not too abstruse to deduce from the context.
>>>

>>
Actually, the fact that "I'm not the least bit interested in your expectations of me, or my blog", has NOTHING to do with mine or anyone elses level of comprehension, but argumentively it was a nice slide from the real point into a personal insult. Something you are all too fond of doing as your ATS "warning" would suggest.
>>

No. It has relevance to the fact that YOU are not acting with the professionalism of a defense industry 'expert' as several here have hailed you to be and you yourself have stated. You should know better than to sell Spam-spam-spam-and-spam like a Monty Pythonesque caricature of technology.

>>
So, the real point here is your total disregard for the interested layperson who wants to understand, and you know they want to understand; but do you put your words in everyday plain english for them?
>>

It is better to challenge a man to learn something than to feed him pablum 'at the level he can understand' as an exercise in misinformation.

That said, you don't cite an example _in this thread_ so methinks you have woven a tapestry behind which you urgently desire to cover up your own mistakes.

>>
Nope.
You go merrily blithering away, in milspeak, Kurtspeak and going down rabbit trails like someone's senile old grandmother, the whole time holding anyone in disdain who finds your 10,000+ word posts just a bit too hard to understand, or should I say "too abtrusive".
>>

Ahhh yes, Dilbert said it best: "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Being as you're a gurl I should add "Then turn it around and blame you for their own mistakes."

>>
Arrogance.

Pure arrogance.
>>

Snicker. I would say so but then 'I'm not the blogger'.

>>
I doubt anyone is "wowed" by my moniker.
>>

>>>
I love ATS because of people like Intelgurl.

You got my vote for this post. many thanks for the piccie and links.
>>>

>>>
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
>>>

Yawn...

>>
What I try to do is find obscure open source information and bring it up for discussion. Anyone can go to AvWeek and post the latest progress on the Raptor or the F-35.
>>

The problem is that the F-35 works. However poorly. Sufficient to generate hardware.

The 'UCHAV' doesn't. And you should have been the first to question why it is getting money. Because you're the 'eggspert'.

>>
And if my "hyperbole" is worthless crap, it's not your conservative commentary that I have a problem with, it's your incessant hammering away at anyone who dares to speak up and not see the world as you do.
>>

And you tease and tickle and dare the response so that you can cover for some pretty fast and loose 'reporting'.

>>
Again I say, arrogance.
>>

Yup, I'd say so. If you worked for any news organization or even, /gasp/, me, you'd be fired for poor background work and non-existent application of common sense engineering scepticism.

Insult away m'dear. You'll never get roped by me for it. Ain't worth my time.


KPl.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
how do they want to fly ucavs and other planes when oil runs out they come up with great prototypes but what do we have when there is no fosil fuel left to power the fans or the rotors



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
People, let's this thread on the topic of discussion and not on the other member. Thank you.

Let me leave this reminder here.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by intelgurl
 
I hardly know where to begin. This is such an interesting discussion; perhaps I can contribute something to it.

Due to a chance encounter I met a care-giver for a sick elderly man. After some light chatter, I discovered that she had been recently on a trip. She was flown with a number of other "significant others" to visit her spouse who was on government service in the Middle East. Between this past Christmas and New Year's she flew to the location of her husband's service and back on a mach 3 VTOL VIP aircraft. She told the sick gentleman that the craft could be brought right down into his backyard. She was so terrorized of the"cloak-and-dagger" tactics used to get the passengers to their departure point somewhere in eastern Virginia that she failed to pick up on the details of the aircraft, the sorts of information most interesting to visiters to this site. The aircraft did not carry but a few persons and there were at least 2 of the ships at the departure site. She did try to sleep the entire trip through, eagerly looking forward to landing, so as to lessen the terrors which gripped her during the flight.

Some of the things she did notice: everyone instructing the passengers on what they were to do told the passengers the craft was capable of mach 3. The flight crew of two operated in their shirtsleeves and jeans; there was a cargo space between the flight deck and the VIP area. The VIP area was very plush, with entertainment equipment, comfortable reclining seating and a refreshment area. When they landed in the Middle East, they were told they would have to remain in the aircraft until it cooled down. She said that the aircraft looked like the Batmobile.

Perhaps this is a full scale version of the UCAV discussed at this site?



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
On right track?
And yes used a necromancy spell to bring this one back for relevance :-P



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

that looks super funky.

People seeing or hearing that would scream ufo.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

www.google.com...



that would give enough power for a laser and make it go fast as well
edit on 11-11-2016 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

That's an awesome find! It's very detailed---this means that somebody is building it.

I mean, look at claims 25-30:



A system for generating electrical current, said system comprising:
a magneto hydrodynamic drive generator;
an alkaline substance seed;
a high-mach turbine efflux gas stream having a positive charge and ionized by said alkaline substance seed;
a plurality of magnetic ring plates having a negative charge; and
an exoskeleton turbine casing in which said plurality of magnetic ring plates are embedded, wherein said high-mach turbine efflux gas stream crosses perpendicular to said magnetic ring plates to generate electrical current.
26. The system of claim 25, wherein said magneto hydrodynamic drive generator produces approximately 10 to 12 megawatts of electrical power.
27. The system of claim 25, wherein the alkaline substance seed is one of cesium, selenium, or potassium.

28. A method of manufacturing turbine components with continuous ceramic fiber, said method comprising:
untwisting a plurality of fibers;
alternatively breaking said plurality of fibers once to form at least one right angle;
and weaving said plurality of fibers into a net shape perform.
29. The method of claim 28, wherein said fibers are composed of hafnium carbide.
30. The method of claim 28, wherein said fibers are composed of silicone carbine reinforcement fiber.


I mean, people just don't pop up and say "hey, hafnium carbide, why not?" in the shower.


edit on 11-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I think that is what the Hypersonic Flight thread is about. There are two companies that are shooting for a mach 5/6 business jet in the 2020s. I would bet they are the ones responsible for the patents.

I like the "twisted fibers in said tool" talk! So... I am thinking carbon nanotubes maybe?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join