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.

 

Mad Planeman's Stealth Challenge 2006

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

aerospace-think-tank.blogspot.com...
www.sinodefenceforum.com...

Think you know a bit about military technology???? Do ya? DO YA?!!???! Well, here's a chance to dazzle us with your ingenuity, or at least have fun trying.

Basically design a low cost stealth combat aircraft and illustrate your concept.

An pretty sketch is this close support aircraft:


But it's not a drawing contest so don't be shy sharing your ideas.




posted on May, 3 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   
OK, here goes with a bit of a pencil drawing. As you can see I chose typical UCAV style layout although it is a single seat battlefield support aircraft. I also chose twin counter rotating propfans giving zero torque while the low observable aspect is aided by the large canted fins which give excellent control, help to shield the propfans for radar returnss and also help in reducing noise from the blade tips giving a low noise footprint over the battlefield (because they are canted outwards they deflect what blade noise does escape upwards), these features mean it handles like a jet but is considerably quieter.



[edit on 3-5-2006 by waynos]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Does the longer starboard wing in the middle picture contribute to the overall stealth design?


Kidding mate, looks pretty good to me, and demonstrates a better understanding of how this stealth stuff works than I'll ever have. As a question, you used a UCAV design, but have added a manned element. Does that alter significantly the stealth characteristics? The rear bulkhead doesn't look too prominent, so I guess it won't be too bad. Also, as a battlefield support aircraft, are you optomising the RCS across all bands, including air to air radars, or specifically for detect/track/FCR radars? Also, stores management, internal carriage I suppose?



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Being manned does alter the stealth aspect as it makes the aircraft necessarily larger and there is more volume up front. But I have tried to minimise this. I reckon the design would work very well as a UCAV too but at the moment a simple aircraft with a human being in control is optimal so I allowed for this.

I'm afraid 'across all bands' is a buit greek to me as I'm not an engineer, I'm an artist
so (if I have understood you correctly) I have tried to come up with something that is stealthy in respect of radar, IR signature AND noise.

stores; I figure internal carriage in the deepened centre section, Brimstone is my weapon of choice as it is very compact and even a Harrier can carry 16 of them. an internal gun is also included (but it doesn't show) think F-16 to visualise where it is.

I suppose it shoulsd also be capable of carrying ASRAAM too, lets say 'under-tip' carriage when necessary, though this does compromise stealth. Alternately you could deploy some of these aircraft with an internal armament consisting only of 4-6 ASRAAM, they could be fighter escorts for the Brimstone carriers or anti-helicopter aircraft operating in their own right (and I've just thought of that).





Does the longer starboard wing in the middle picture contribute to the overall stealth design?


I was so desperate to make sure the plan view was in balance I forgot to go back to the frontal view and check it, oops.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by waynos]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Hope you aren't calling me an engineer! Nothing could be further from the truth. My Arts degree certainly points to a non-mathematically gifted person...

What I was driving at was if the stealth aspects are optomised against airborne radars (ie fighters) or the ground based radar threat (SA-2, 3, 6, 10, 15 etc). Guess it comes down to what you think you're main threat is going to be.

This leads into general CONOPS (concept of operations) discussion. If you are planning on operating above 20 odd thousand feet, IR and acoustic reduction become less important. If your weapons let you stand-off from the ground-based threat systems, you can optomise your RCS versus I band radars (which most fighter type aircraft use). It will also assist in determining weapon integration needs, etc. So, as with any design, you need to define the requirement first. Which in some ways has been the crux of a lot of the discussion on the boards recently, are we still designing and flying aircraft using a mind set that isn't valid anymore? Has the paradigm shifted? You've already gone some way towards this by indicating a role of battlefield support, and defining some target types.

Hmmm, maybe I'm getting too in depth for this thread. Rule number one of aircraft design: Always look cool.
(No need for certain people to flame me over this comment, it is just a joke!)



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Good discussion.

Waynos, nice design. The challenging bit is the prop; how do you propose to make the fan blades and hub radar stealthy? My own thoughts on that is to use fully composite blades and try to shroud the hub behind faceted surfaces static within the spinner which too would be radar transparent composites.

But the simple answer is that using jets, or ducted fans with very long S-shaped intake and exhaust pipes are far easier to stealthify.

Re battlefield support. If I had a radar-stealthy aircraft, the last place I'd want it hanging out is at low altitude where all sorts of AAA and MANPADs can have a pop at it, whether or not their radar registers its presence.


Anyway, here's my current favorite design, a bare-minimal strike bomber:

Full sized image: i2.tinypic.com...



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Interesting feedback guys, plenty of food for thought there, I'll try to work through the ones I can answer;




What I was driving at was if the stealth aspects are optomised against airborne radars (ie fighters) or the ground based radar threat (SA-2, 3, 6, 10, 15 etc). Guess it comes down to what you think you're main threat is going to be.


this aircraft was sketched ('designed' is far too grand a term) with the same battlefield requirement in mind that the BAe SABA was schemed for several years back but with added LO. The main threat I see in this environment is from ground based radar equipped defence systems as well as your average Joe with a Blowpipe on his shoulder etc. That was my thinking behind the noisese suppression and low IR signature (the propfan exhausts throungh an annular aperture adjacent to the rear hub and straight into the slipstream where it is mixed with the ambient air).




his leads into general CONOPS (concept of operations) discussion. If you are planning on operating above 20 odd thousand feet, IR and acoustic reduction become less important. If your weapons let you stand-off from the ground-based threat systems, you can optomise your RCS versus I band radars (which most fighter type aircraft use).


As planeman simply asked for a low cost aircraft I felt the decision on the CONOPS was lef to the designer which was why I decided to look again at the SABA idea. This may itself be a flawed concept but it offered me a peg on which I could hang my concept.

This sort of aircraft was envisaged as being available 'on call' to the Commander on the ground for direct close air support on demand in a low cost versatile and relatively survivable airframe, therefore it would chiefly be operated at very low altitude and would be in an environment inhabited by offensive helicopters like the Hind, etc. Its enhanced survivability in this area comes down to the LO features I mentioned earlier and the higher transit speeds it enjoys by comparison, max spedd would be arounf the 450mph mark, in A-10 territory, which you might class this as a low cost, low observable alternative to.




are we still designing and flying aircraft using a mind set that isn't valid anymore?


possibly so, but I felt this sort of idea meets the remit of the original post, whether it is operationally valid woulld be for somebody else to decide.




Waynos, nice design. The challenging bit is the prop; how do you propose to make the fan blades and hub radar stealthy?


To be honest I have no idea, that was the reason I put the prop at the back with the engine exhausting into its slipstream and the fins at either side to blank it somewhat. The composite curved and swept blades would have reduced susceptibility but, like all planes I suppose, it is a compromise so that it might remain undetected for as long as possible on approach, or from the side aspect. once the bombs started going off the enemy would know it was there anyway





But the simple answer is that using jets, or ducted fans with very long S-shaped intake and exhaust pipes are far easier to stealthify.


The ducted fan was another thought of mine, but not until after I posted the picture. If this was a serious proposal I would want the same basic design extensiveley researched with all three propulsion ideas to determine which was the most suitable. The rear engine location lends itself admirably to each format without massive redesign.

This was my jet variant, schemed earlier, which didn't require the fins. There are plenty of problems with it (eg the intake is too short and too far aft) but I had decided to try the propfan out before I changed it.






Re battlefield support. If I had a radar-stealthy aircraft, the last place I'd want it hanging out is at low altitude where all sorts of AAA and MANPADs can have a pop at it, whether or not their radar registers its presence.


Unfortunately that is the nature of the beast, which is why noise supression must also play a part.

.

Planeman, would you say your design could provide a low cost equivalent to the F-117?



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I dind't know you could draw waynos...
Exellent pic...

I like your first idea planeman... looks like a stealthy A-10...



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
CAS plane in the lines of A-10
Ducted fan, with intakes at sides of fuselage and exhaust buried at the tail
Bomb bay for 5*500Kg bombs and 40mm nose cannon. Landing gear folds into the wings.

nwolf.busythumbs.com...


nwolf.busythumbs.com...

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 17/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I think you would need to demonstrate more technical know-how in the field of RADAR geometry in order to design a good stealth plane, not military know-how.

I have very little, so I'm not going to add.

Just my two-cents.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Shattered
True on the radar geometry, my wave physics skills are limited to those that we aquired in mandatory physics courses at our Uni (mostly nothing
)

I try to use the machine engineer skills i have combined to a grunts (well, recon NCOs) view of things and to a armchair generals viewpoint...

My "desing" or scetch (i can't draw so do 3d in order to make ppl understand my ideas) is probably not stealthy on radar (wrong angles), but i assume IR side should be quite good.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
But shattered, its only a bit of fun. A game. We can all share ideas as enthusiastic amateurs but I'm sure a real technical bod like Kilcoo could demonstrate why these schemes are nonsense if so inclined.

Thats not the point though is it? Look at me. As soon as optimising the stealth characteristics across all bandwidths, or whatever it was, were mentioned I was flapping like a Duck on a bonfire
I've long said that the technical stuff is not my bag but I quite like my doodle even if it would prove to be useless, or worse, dangerous to its own side more than the enemy if anyone should try and produce it



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Here's an old design of mine made in no time a long time ago


i78.photobucket.com...




[edit on 5-5-2006 by vorazechul]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
And here's another one i just made. Don't you even think those airintakes are sqare......they just look that way







It has a small weapons bay on the under side and can't be seen from this point of view and it can also cary pods with various weapons and spytech



[edit on 5-5-2006 by vorazechul]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by vorazechul
And here's another one i just made. Don't you even think those airintakes are sqare......they just look that way







It has a small weapons bay on the under side and can't be seen from this point of view and it can also cary pods with various weapons and spytech

[edit on 5-5-2006 by vorazechul]


I the designd is pretyt complicated, and I have no idea what "top" wing will help...



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by vorazechul
And here's another one i just made. Don't you even think those airintakes are sqare......they just look that way







It has a small weapons bay on the under side and can't be seen from this point of view and it can also cary pods with various weapons and spytech

[edit on 5-5-2006 by vorazechul]


Ah, joined wing design, a subject near to my heart. That looks a good design (I can't see the other two you posted). Would the facets be left sharp edged or would you blend them?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Well the wing has a lots of advantages:

1) its small.....it is so compact you can land it anywhere you want especially with the lift that a wing like that can have and the low speed that that results in.
2) very rigid and strong (its going to cary something in another design)
3) its not that complicated: you don't have to use any strong alloys to make it either


And yes I would like to blend it but don't have the skiles and the programs to do it
(would you beleave I drew the Sleazydart on MS Paint).
I also have some other designes that will just take me toooooooo long to draw with MS Paint.

PS: the links above shoould work now(not that they're the best I've made:roll


[edit on 5-5-2006 by vorazechul]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
My latest configuration influenced by the Alenia Sky-X:



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Low-observable strike bomber. Twin high-bypass turbofans with fixed-geometry nozzles; The hump on it contains the two engines and a weapons bay with an advanced rotary launcher like that in the B-2. The speed would be probably ~Mach 0.75. Wing loading would be relatively low, so it'll maneuver pretty well.


The materials got screwed up on this one. There are apparent seams on the render where there really aren't any.


[edit on 5/17/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
That's pretty cool. I'm looking forward to seeing more screenshots and refinements.

I'm also getting closer to what to me is a definitive configuration, balancing feasibility (risk reduction by 'safe' design features, cost reduction in terms of sensor fit etc) and stealth, together with a useful combat load:


From the side it looks a bit like a Jaguar. In terms of capability it can be likened to a stealthy AMX with up to date stand-off weapons.

* The main weapons bays are on the uniformally sloping sides of the fuselage just in front of the main undercarriage doors. These are modular and can be replaced with sensor packs with conformal windows for Recce.

* The wing tips and under fusealge can accomodate stealthily shaped drop tanks/stores carriers.

* The tail may be extended to improve IR signiture and reduce rear aspect radar reflection off the turbine. Small stealthily shaped bleed air inlets in the leading edge of the V-tail provide cold air for pre-exhaust mixing, which is vented into the centre of the exhaust plume.

* The reverse sweep intakes provide just enough overhang of the leading edge to facilitate modest angles of attack. The leading edge of the wing has flaps to enhance take-off and AoA performance - this makes stealth harder but is necessary to provide modest agility.

* The design uses limited off-the-shelf combat sensors, primarily consisting of a IRST/FLIIR/Laser designator turret housed behind faceted windows in the nose.




[edit on 18-5-2006 by planeman]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join