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.

 

BAE Replica

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
OK, I can see some of the merit in your argument, and I think this is the first time I've actively disagreed with you except for the time when I was blatantly wrong through misreading a post. But answer me this, why would you not simply smooth out the curve? I cannot think of a reason why any designer would leave it like that, except for one, Its a canopy. the size and configuration have nothing to do with it, if a set internal volume is required then the design would be made to accomodate that volume naturally, warts would only appear as an afterthought when equipment was added to a later model. Your own example of the Global Hawk is a perfect example of this, you sayu it looks like it has a canopy, but this is only in side elevation, in every other viewpoint this 'canopy' can be seen to be perfectly blended into the contours of the airframe.

Yes this is just my supposition and we'll probably end up agreeing to differ on this but I just think that nothing finds its way onto a design for no reason, and there is no reason for an avionics hump on anything at the wind tunnel stage for a brand new design.



[edit on 19-3-2006 by waynos]




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Well I’m no design expert but I could see a reason for example if the vehicle comes from a base manned design and is meant to carry two datalinks for LOS and BLOS operation a canopy area of this base manned design would be perfect to place to put the antenna so as to avoid interference from mission sensors. It would also help avoid problems with the signals being blocked by RAM on the main fuselage, a single large radar transparent blister on the top where the canopy was on the original design would be a perfect place and be much easier to manufacture and maintain. But it all depends on the design goals, for all we know it could have been designed to have as much commonality with a manned platform as possible, keeping the same configuration would be the easiest option. It could be an optionally manned design; I just don’t think there is enough information available to dismiss the labels on the site.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Well, I disagree and I have reasons in answer to your last post but I don't think we will ever convince each other so its probably time to let the thread move on to something else now



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Fair enough


This sentence exists purely so the forum will let me post, otherwise it's too short.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
A recent press release from BAE Systems regarding Taranis, BAEs UAV Technology Demonstrator Program. Gave an objective summary on the Replica program, along with Nightjar and Raven.




BAE Systems

The Replica programme had the objective of supporting the development of a UK capability to provide a survivable, affordable and supportable air platform to meet perceived Royal Air Force and Royal Navy requirements beyond current programmes. Replica resulted in the production of a full scale Model of a radar signature controlled aircraft configuration, with key features representative of a flying integrated weapon system, which was then taken through a rigorous test programme. A key aim of the Replica programme was to demonstrate Low Observable (LO) technologies in a low cost design and production environment, using paperless aircraft processes.






[edit on 10/12/2006 by 300k]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o


you say america wouldn't help us? - what does BAE's projects have to do with america??



[edit on 16-3-2006 by st3ve_o]


You might be surprised to find out that BAe own an awful lot of shares in some big, American Defence firms....



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Replica, with new coating, being moved at BAE Warton, UK on 18th February 2014.




You can see the test pole at 2:45 in the video.

Old image at following link

www.hitechweb.genezis.eu...



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


I believe it is going on display at a museum..



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I know Lockheed tried flogging us Navy versions of the F-117 but we turned it down .

I think it was John B. Alexander that said there are very few secrets between the USA and UK and the few secrets that exist are mainly unimportant political ones.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Its always upside down!



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by IamSirDrinksalot
 


No, that's our clever new stealth technique, it just makes you think it is upside down!



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

waynos
reply to post by IamSirDrinksalot
 


No, that's our clever new stealth technique, it just makes you think it is upside down!


I thought it was built for the southern hemisphere market....

I did work at warton but from the footage couldnt make out which hangar, except it was away from the production and more in the flight test. Maybe there is a paint shop on the South SIde of the airfield.

There is a hangar over there on wheels so they can work on the plane and then when there are no russian satellites overhead, the hangar wheels back and they fire radar at it.

Every man and his one eyed dog can go upto the fence and photograph it, but not the russian satellites!

Maybe its just a weather shelter, we get out fair share of rain.

Anyway, that hangar looks like the one that wheels back (by its size ie. a one aircraft hangar) but i cant make out any tracks or wheels.

What I am saying is, perhaps as above mentioned it is just being prepped for a museum, or maybe, BAE are giving some new paint a test....




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join