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.

 

no idea what so ever.

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I'm with you MadGreebo Fella !




posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GSA
Hi AIM64.

Im glad i didnt post in a dead thread, because I found these pictures above in my post which look the same as that (Or nearly enough : ) ) and they are from the FOAS project for the united kingdom and the X UCAV series for the US forces.

Im really no judge on pictures / or art work, but the line drawing of the FOAS project really look alot like a scaled down version of what ever it is flying beside / under + beside that chase plane.

Oh and I get the name now, the Phoenix missle for the F-14 Tomcat isn't it?


Yeah, if anything they're tests of UCAVs - barring the blurred pic with the chase plane. One thing about the B-2 is that it has some pretty impressive maneuverability for an airplane of its size. It may not look it - but that plane CAN get the heck out of dodge if need-be. What's also really cool is watching them land in formation.

However, the 'problem' with the B-2 is that it's not a fighter - and its design is not really that of a fighter aircraft. The design lends very well to a long-ranged and heavy-payload aircraft that can turn on a dime - but not a fighter. So, I don't know why the Military would be persuing designs of an anti-air UCAV based on the B-2.

It's kind of hard to tell - but it appears as though the wings of the silver object in question could be a Pegasus-type aircraft - more shaped like an arrow than a pixelated boomerang. That type of aircraft would be well-suited to a fighter role - as it would be fast, small, and fairly maneuverable.

I preffer a design that I have developed that takes a wide, smooth nose/body that molds into forward-swept wings whose trailing edges form the rear of the aircraft, where they meet to make a rounded, crescant shape. where the exhaust is ducted. The design is for a universal aircraft - it has a rather large payload area, allowing it to carry air-dropped supplies, small supplies to forward bases, electronic warfare equipment, air-to-air munitions, air-to-ground munitions, etc. You could even conduct survailence with it.

Not sure how 'stealthy' the design would be - but it's designed to be maneuverable, fast, and worth the flight time. Although only time will tell once I am actually able to build the thing.... it's on my to-do list after I get my scale model of the YF-23 up and flying.... which won't be for a while....

As for my name - yes, it was supposed to be for the Phoenix...... however, whenever I first 'created' this name (a few years ago), I was very tired and used 64 rather than 54 ...... but... 'Aim' is like my second-name, now.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
B-2s land in formation?
I don't think so. F-117s yes, B-2s no way. They're the size of B-52s, and even though they're military, they're required to keep the FAA separation of 30 seconds on landing.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
They've done it. Although it's a rare event - so it could possibly be in violation of FAA - although I really doubt that the FAA has much jurisdiction over Whiteman and other such air bases. However, the B-2s can easily be flying formation seconds before they land and still maintain 30 seconds between wheel touchdown. Or it could have been a couple showboating pilots who got chewed out afterwards - who knows (although that is a REALLY expensive aircraft to go showboating in - at about 873 Million, last I checked)



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
No, they were doing an over. approach. That's quite a bit different from landing in formation. Landing in formation is when they touch the runway next to each other. Over. approaches is when they fly over the runway in formation, and break at 10 second intervals to gain seperation time between the planes.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
My mistake, then.

Either way - it's pretty darn awesome to see such a big airplane doing something like that so elegantly.

Of course, what's really fun is, being a local and having good color distinguishment, I can spot the B-2 from several nauticle miles out even without my contacts/glasses - several minutes before anyone else sees it. One year, one was doing a flyby from south-east to loop around back towards north-west, but no one knew which way the B-2 was coming from. People are looking south and west, and I'm the only one on the tarmac looking right at the B-2. Getting bored waiting for everyone else to find it, I go over to look at a static display, during that time, a few of them figure it out and everyone's got their .s focussed on the sky.

Then, after it lands, it pulls up to a hangar and rolls in. The doors close. A couple hours later, you notice the doors are open again on both sides - and there is no more B-2 - and nothing taxied anywhere. HMMM..... the area was a minuteman facility years back, and would have large underground assembly areas that could be easily adapted for use as hangars.

There are ... 24 B-2s, now (if I remember right)... and only like 10 hangars up there for the B-2. I counted one day - and after I got to three and thought "wait a minute...." I thought about the possibility of stacking one 2.4 billion dollar plane on top of the other (which might be capable of being done if one plane retracts its landing gear), and quickly dismissed the idea. I thought about keeping 14 other aircraft airborne/abroad at any given time... but even that's stretching it. Then when you see all of these vent pipes coming out of the ground throughout the airbase, as well as the 'disapearing B-2', then take into account that the many A-10s and F-15s are absent completely - with very few hangars available for use.... you kinda have to wonder a little.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dew
Madgreebo - hope you don't mind - I've just adjusted the gamma/contrast to try and cut the haze out of your shots a little. Hope it clarifies them a bit. I'll take 'em down if you want.






It's hard to tell about the colours - from the pictures I would think it's just the sun, but if it was changing then that's a different story!

[edit on 23/6/06 by Dew]

Why do photobucket always reduce the quality of the uploaded pictures? (well obviously to save space - but it sucks!). I've just compared the original image uploaded to that shown now, and there's not nearly as much jpeg compression artefacts.

[edit on 23/6/06 by Dew]



Today at the Farnborough Airshow Lockheed release infomation/picture of the POLECAT UAV, Is this Madgreebo's B-2 lookalike?

EXTERNAL LINK



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
The size and shape don't match, but that is what I thought when I first saw the image.


GSA

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Lockheed/Boeing AARS / Q / Tier III
The Advanced Airborne Reconnaissance System (AARS) program was initiated in the mid-1980s as a loitering long-range strategic reconnaissance aircraft. It had to be able to penetrate contested airspace and carry a wide range of sensors. Its main function would have been to support the B-2 bombers in their mission of destroying mobile ICBM and IRBM launchers within the Soviet Union.

Lockheed Skunk Works and Boeing participated in the competition, and Lockheed's entry, which was originally a company funded project, was chosen. Boeing, Loral and General Electric then joined Lockheed for development. The resulting AARS was an unmanned stealthy flying wing about the size of a B-2. It resembled the Lockheed's ATB proposal with a single sawtooth trailing edge like the original B-2 (before 1983). The UAV was powered by two General Electric F414 or F404 turbofans. It was also the first aircraft to sport "active stealth" features: the aircraft was coated with LCD-like panels that made it possible to paint a "picture" on its surface.

The AARS carried the CIA code-name "Quartz" or just "Q". After the end of the cold war, the aircraft was scaled down to a wingspan of roughly 26 meters and designated "Tier III". It is possible that the USAF created the 2nd Air Force under SAC in September 1991 only for the purpose of flying this aircraft. A manned demonstrator reportedly flew late in 1991 or early in 1992 from Groom Lake. The program was very expensive, with an estimated unit cost of $250 million. The Tier III, which was then considered the most advanced stealth aircraft ever flown, was cancelled in Secretary of Defence Les Aspin's Tac Air Review in May 1993. Late in 1993 the project was replaced by the less advanced Tier II+ and Tier III- programs, the latter of which inherited some features from the original Tier III.


Is this the craft that just went black and got buried?? Sorry its a long time since this has been looked at, but finding this made me think about that stealth piccie MadGreebo posted.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
GSA be sure to post were you find your information as people can then have a better idea of the context it was takin from. When i went looking for info on the AARS i found an identical artical to what you posted. personal.inet.fi... Im not going to try and say that you did this purposly to take someone info as your own, seeing as the tone pf the post is of just information. BUT please POST YOUR LINKS/SOURCES. It would be helpfull to all.


GSA

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
will do.

Sorry I cannot seem to get it to qoute in the box...so I just cut and pasted - sorry the above is in no way shape or form my info - its others work and ill get the link and add it .



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
On looking at it closer - it appears to be more akin to the X-47 B........ but, hell - every UCAV in development looks like the B-2 these days.

The only problem is that the X-47B has yet to officially fly....



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
only problem with this "photo" being the X-47 is that the wingtips are more angled back so that the tips are more swept then the b-2's which this planes tips look more like. if you check the 47 thread that is up right now you'll see that though alike its not the same.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join