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.

 

F-35 (UCAV Variant)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Oh man i beg for mercy!! PLEASE for the love of all thats sacred, PLEAS I beg you, dont do an X-32.....


I am begging here on bended knees.....



Well if it was a choice, yep X-35 wins by a country mile and more!


I'll look forward to seeing your UCAV F-35. If its as good as your others it'll be sweet!



(And any tips, well chuck em my way if there time savers
)




posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
I'll look forward to seeing your UCAV F-35. If its as good as your others it'll be sweet!

Actually I dont think I have ever posted a image that I have Photoshopped, Most the pics I post are either real, or professional done concept images...in which (unfortunatly) I cant take the credit for doing.

and...no, I wont do the 32...lol



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
St3ve and murc,
I had half hour at lunch, so i knocked up an image of a SEAD strike by a manned and two unmanned f-35's just to see what it would look like...

img244.imageshack.us...

Theres the link for you to have a look at. Murc, if you could show me how tp post images direct onto the ATS page i would appreciate that.


Hope you like the piccie.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I spent around an hour on this, I've messed around with photoshop before...but I have never actually doctored any pictures...until now of course.


my F-35 UCAV



[edit on 24-8-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Dude thats an Pwnage picture!!

That, i have to say, is the sweetness! (I actually think it looks viable as well as a real platform!)

Wowser, time i sat an spent an hour on a piccie, because I just got my arse handed back to me in a hat!!

St3ve, you have unleashed a monster here my friend... Sweet is all i can say.



(Did you like the SEAD piccie?)



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
thanks...I thought it turned out pretty good.

But I'm nowhere near the level of those photoshop addicts out there...I've seen the pictures on Worth1000.com and I know I wont ever be able to be on par with them.

Your last pic was "ok"...I liked you first pic the best. One thing you should do to make your pics better is to make the cockpit look like its not there...other then just painting over it...your pics still have the "cockpit bubble"...but no cockpit.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Cool will bear that in mind for the next one....lol guess ill skip the F-117 then... ROFL.

Any how, I thought of leaving the copit 'in' like they did with the global hawk... i could always see that as a manned system with a....


Hey now theres an idea...A manned global hawk..... HHHmmmmmm my next project me thinks!

Cheers for the input.

DK



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Here's a more "official" rendering of the unmanned F-35 from a Lockheed news release (I had to scan it). I gotta say Murcielago's version looks better than Lockheed's!






[edit on 8-24-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Well smack me side ways with a soggy sock!!


yeah and oh yeah like I can never ever believe that this was not some stunt between you....ROFl nice peeps I really fell for that one. Photoshopped my eye.... rofl you sneaky sod you just rolled out an official piccie ...rofl. And if you didn't then boy chance is smiling on you today (Lottery tickets for one i guess after hitting that jackpot!)



Nice one dude, you had me on that one good and proper. An d I just got your avatar....ROFL do you work for Lockheed as well?? Oh man, no wonder you kept pressing the loose the copit angle... Very nice picture how ever it came about.


[edit on 24-8-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I gotta say Murcielago's version looks better than Lockheed's!

Thanks...and I agree.




Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
yeah and oh yeah like I can never ever believe that this was not some stunt between you....ROFl nice peeps I really fell for that one. Photoshopped my eye.... rofl you sneaky sod you just rolled out an official piccie ...rofl.

Nice one dude, you had me on that one good and proper. And I just got your avatar....ROFL do you work for Lockheed as well?? Oh man, no wonder you kept pressing the loose the copit angle... Very nice picture how ever it came about.



stunt...no.
work for lockheed...no.
& the cockpit talk was just some constructive criticism.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
dude im kidding with you.... I loved your picture, was really well done to produce such a nice image.

As for the coincidence of you posting and then not ten minutes later Intelgurl posting an official picture.... man you really do need to keep buying a lottery ticket if you rack up odds like that....

Thank you intelgurl for the official picture.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
dude im kidding with you.... I loved your picture, was really well done to produce such a nice image.

Arg, the sarcasm in the text eludes me again.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
hi all, what do people know about this??

www.defensenews.com...

is it a joint project between various nations like the manned F-35 jsf (lighting)?, would love to hear some more info about it





Most of it is wrong. While an upfueled and longspan wing F-16 variant was used for awhile to illustrate what could be done with second line aircraft as a function of not exposing 'valuable' types to high density air defense systems, there was never any serious work put into reconfiguring the flight controls (imagine a 300 knot limited airfoil taking off with upwards of 20,000lbs of fuel and munitions using burner-over-brains approach) nor in justifying how a conventional signature airframe would necessarily be a superior asset simply because a pilot wasn't lost when it was.

Lockheed later went on (1994 or so) to develop their own Saber Warrior concept and while this may or may not have eventuated too late for the DARPA UDS program, it certainly was in no way related to the existing F-16 or the JSF technology base (interestingly it did include manned and unmanned iterations as well).

The next thing you need to consider is the basic cost:weight fraction. For a long time this was 1 million dollars per 1 thousand pounds gross weight. Since the advent of LO engineering, the materials and tolerances have tightened up considerably even as schedules have stretched out unto the ridiculous so that you are probably talking a 3:1 or even 4:1 ratio now.

As such the excuse of a '3%' change in savings is not credible because, without the full sensor suite and probably some new ones you WILL NOT need the fighter mission performance profiles.

Which means that you automatically need to start looking at things you can successfully pull OFF the airframe.

1. Big, Twin Tails.
These add wetted drag and are generally not as efficient, structurally, as a single tail configuration, existing only because the airframe needs to contemplate aggressive maneuvering under conditions for which yaw at alpha either blanks or doesn't provide enough control power to effectively keep the aircraft stable. Except for a true LO airframe and particularly one which is subsonic, not only is the presented area of a tail like a billboard from many key aspects. But it is also anethema to the profile flown. Which is slow and smooth turns with as little rolled aspect deflection as possible to keep the planform alignments from 'flashing' glint.

2. Supersonic Performance.
Inherent to an afterburner with a complex Con/Di nozzle. Another witless invention which adds TONS of weight, not only in the engine and bearing structure itself. But also in the assumed fuel consumption figures. If you were to remove the burner can from an F135, you would halve it's length.

3. Gaping Inlets.
A well designed engine, especially in cruise mode, doesn't need much more than a slit inlet. UNLESS it is feeding a massflow requirement necessary to both cool a very hot military core and provide auxilliary air to cool the case and feed the burner as bypass. Indeed, if the engine itself is _short_ it helps immensely if the inlet path is actually not to convoluted or extended in terms of providing minimal disruption to the engine face. Auxilliary inlets can open to assist with takeoff where added massflow at low airspeed and high throttle conditions but even here, there is no real requirement to feed a 27,000-30,000lbst class engine given you purposefully design the airframe around an assumed lightweight munition class.

4. Stance.
Unsurprisingly, landing gear are -exceptionally- heavy for their length, being one of the chief areas, outside propulsion, where nothing but steel will do to provide enough strength to accept the stresses involved. If you have to load the airframe manually from underneath while providing a basic ground clearance sufficient for naval ops and STOVL reingestion issues, you gain nothing from a low wing monoplane format. But if you are nominally landbased, by putting everything in a tortoise shell cover atop the wing you get major advantages in ruling and profile drag while keeping the overall depth of the fuselage (and thus the skin enclosing a given volume) very tight. At the same time, you can use the extended arms of a jammer to load well back from the leading edge (keeping the CofG margins acceptable) while potentially even putting the weapons bays in the TOP of the airframe to allow all large opening surfaces to be protected from lower hemisphere detection. It even helps in designing the structural box given that you rest everything atop a basic framework rather than hanging from one.

5. Sensors.
Clearly, it makes ZERO sense to install a flat-face primary aperturel behind a dielectric radome if it interrupts the principle flowpath of the engine. And if you lack the performance to be a fighter. At the same time, the need to see through weather while providing complex topographical 'pulls' (3D terrain elevation imaging) and wide area search capabilities does not allow you to remove the system completely in the _majority mission_ (A2G) which even fighters perform, albeit poorly. This leads to the notion of canted systems and even conformal arrays as being more and more appropriate all across the leading AND trailing edges of airframes so that, for equal or greater total array area, you can actually shift weight around and decrease volumetric packaging constraints to a point where nothing of conventional array design remains the same beyond perhaps PAO supplies. If there is no 1,000-1,500lb package on the front of the nose, there is no need to counterbalance that with heavy tail weights and indeed, most of your aft fuselage can be light weight structure intended solely to provide an expansion/mixing plenum for IR suppression (though 2D yaw vectoring is also a possibility without the tails in the way and with the engine right on the thrust line).
Similarly, a fusealge integrated EO targeting system remains a 'must' because signature requirements and the ability to provide that most critical of two-eyes-on targeting confirmation with the very highest of grain resolution cannot be ignored. In this, the need is less one of differentiating from the existing F-35 than it is realizing that, given /everything about it's other features is wrong/, you cannot afford to compete the very expensive doping elements from the strategic materials resource base. And so the same EOTS suite might as well go to the platform that most deserves it.

Taken together, even ignoring the cockpit as a mistaken hole in the airframe engineering flaw, you have no choice but to acknowledge that as much as half to two thirds the EMPTY system weight of the F-35 is money being thrown away for nothing as a UCAV.

TACTICALLY, there is also a great mistake being made inherent to the following-

>>
But drone-only versions could cost 3% less than the baseline aircraft, according to these projections. For example, the company has envisioned that two piloted fighters could be accompanied by four unmanned fighters without the full suite of high-tech sensors.
"Those are basically external bomb carriers," Mauro said.
>>
www.marketwatch.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
We have already covered the miniscule price vagaries (which could not be guaranteed as they are almost certaintly 'within the error margin' for the overall estimation variables.).
But THINK people:
A. If a UCAV's primary advantage is that it can fly the dull-dumb-dirty-dangerous missions. Why would you expose a pilot seated in an exceptionally uncomfortable cockpit environment to the even longer patrol endurances that he already cannot match both by fuel and by fatigue limits? Now compare this to a man sitting in front of an operator station on a Gulfstream, Challenger or BBJ simply ending his 45 minute to 1hr shift (what ergonomics studies have revealed as being about the longest anyone can maintain a high attention:stress level) to be replaced by another as he goes to the ., gets a sandwich or a beverage and stretches out for a few minutes of IPODing. WHO do you think is going to be overall more efficient over _very long_ (10-17hrs between relief) station holds? WHO do you think is going to have the big screen monitor, mouse and keyboard interface to 'point and click' his way to glory with less clumsiness (bright sunlit cockpit dulling the screens and making him sweat like a pig. Turbulence bouncing the cockpit up and down. Possible threats shooting at him as distraction. Very non user-friendly = slow interface)?
This gets particularly ridiculous when you look at the performance expected of the 10-15 million dollar A-45 which was to be based on a 2hr loiter at 1,100nm in comparison to the officially announced radius for the F-35, given in an Australian defense briefing as being 'roughly 700nm for both the AF and USN versions'. But only in and out. Putting more gas in the cockpit of the drone doesn't solve it's combat controller's problems now does it?
B. WHY would you risk stealth technology inherent to a 'negative three percent' (.03 X 112 million dollars = 108 million) UCAV variant savings by having it fly as an external bomb truck?
Stealth is not a blanket effect. It is isolated to the individual signature AND exposure threshold of each jet. Thus, if JSF-1 is fully LO internalized in all it's carried weapons but none of it's robotic wingmen are, it _cannot_ go to the same target areas with the same risk thresholds _because the airframes are worth more than the men are_.
OTOH, if you use a jet to carry heavy weight munitions or those whose bulk cannot be internally fitted, you rapidly approach a condition whereby _penetration effect is not necessary at all_ (don't pay for LO you don't use). As with HSARM, JASSM, MALD and other true standoff weapons able to fly at least 200nm in from the fence. What use then a UCAV to a fighter pilot who is actually well forward of the FULL SIGNATURE robot hanging back with the tankers?
C. Independent ISR is _crucial_.
Keep in mind that we have yet to prove we can even /task/ the X8 GBU-39 vs. X2 GBU-10/12/24/31 of even as short a historical retrospect period as 2003's OIF response. During which invasion of Iraq there were TENS of aircraft bottlenecking up behind the tankers, all looking to 'do their part' in CAS/OBAS type missions for which we simply couldn't find reliable targets. Because the enemy was not STUPID enough to present themselves as a conventional force construct (and when they did, we were so confident of absolute aerial supremacy that we used a B-52 to drop WCMD on a tank column).

C. The modern day battlefield looks like this:
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................

99.99 percent of the time. A totally blank VOID of contacts as conventional forces play guerilla. And guerilla forces 'borrow' high leverage technology in small numbers to make each of their pinprick attacks have the most value as a bee-sting type throwaway before fading.
The only thing remotely similar to this fear-of-nothingness being ASW ops where you are sanitizing endless vistas of 'whale noise'.
OTOH, even with modern sensors capable of 20nm high definition EO and 40-60nm SAR imaging, the 'activity bubble' around a single airframe that it's sensors can collect data from is pathetically small. Which means that if your position looks like this:

.....................................................................
......_......................................Target1...........
../.......\..........................................................
|...Flt1..|.........................................................
...```````..........................................................
.....................................................................
In fact it is, to the flight of 3+1 UCAV and Manned F-35s, as blank as if it were this:
.....................................................................
......_.............................................................
../.......\..........................................................
|...Flt1..|.........................................................
...```````..........................................................
.....................................................................
Thus your only /hope/ of generating what is called a 'Corporate Memory' (database of intel and expertise across the entire battlespace and all friendly forces available to 'solve problems' within it) is if EACH airframe is contributing the mosaic picture by acting as an **independent sensor node element** so that you can effectively do this:
.....................................................................
......_..........._..........._..........._.Target 1........
../.......\..../.......\..../.......\..../.......\...................
|...E1.. |..|...E2.. |..|...E3.. |..|...E4.. |................
..```````.....```````.....```````.....```````.................
.....................................................................
So that when whatever target fleetingly pops up, you are able to _at least_ catch it departing the area as it tries to goat-blend back in among the sheep. FAILURE to achieve this kind of omnipresent coverage of all areas (on a continuous over. presence basis, 24:7) with 1-2 second launch warning as a cue to area search by FLIR and MTI capable radars, is why the Israeli's got reamed trying to achieve with halfhearted ground attack what their precious fly boys COULD NOT FIND with sufficient reliability and rapdity of response to get the kills solely from the air.
The ironic part being that Hezbollah, not being indoctrinated in stagnated views of airpower, had no problem sending UAVs both to 'Find and Fix' the INS Hanith and to perform post strike BDA over Israel proper after their own rocket attacks. And again, _they got away with it_ because it WAS NOT EXPECTED.
As such, there is simply ZERO justification inherent to 'saving costs' by stripping the sensor suite while _maintaining_ baseline airframe capabilities (high G, supersonics, excessive payload weight). Because the sensor suite has value no matter which airframe you stick it into. But there is no reason to suppose that a single man who is task-saturation challenged maintaining tactical coherence in his own immediate area of responsibility and effect. Can also system-manage 3 others, even using synthesis automation of their presented picture. Certainly he/she cannot fight them sufficiently to counteract a threat force DCA response. Which means that all the weight and cost of those PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE 'fighterized' systems is _wasted_ under his control.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
As such they are the elements that should first be removed. Because if the fixed wing air defense response is operationally rare due to our overwhelming intimidation. Stealth + Standoff /works/ as a function of hiding the air vehicle from local S2A defenses. And remote overwatch via AEW&C configured HALE UAV or conventional manned assets remains possible (only we have working LO) as a function of command-retrograding platforms which cannot engage as equals the airframes which come visually hunting them; then there is no excuse but to accept that 'fighter design' is itself the anachronism. Along with the sky knighted single warrior that operates them.

CONCLUSION:
This is merely Lunchmeat Inc's final acknowledgment that the man-heavy JSF is likely going to die a $low death of unintere$ted cu$tomer $tarvation due to a no longer valid business case finally becoming obvious with both their export clients and the principal home services now budgetarily bled out in Iraq. And realizing they are WAY too deeply out of pocket (on the Raptor-becomes-Lightning-II techbase) to remorph their approach to 'affordable airpower' a third time, LM are now trying desperately to legitimize their existing effort with a lipstick-on-pig effort to make the F-35 appear as what it will never be: A useful UCAV.
Everyone who knows anything about the unmanned/uninhabited field knows this and they are laughing their asses off at the assumption that the F-35 will ever 'look enough like a duck' to quack it's way out of the pool of expanding red ink.
Thank heavens for Hezbollah. A more vicious bunch of murderous creeps there never was but at least they have so embarrassed the IDFAF as to make the sky knight community overall look like the elitist smurphs they really are.

KPl.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   


en.wikipedia.org...
F-35 Lightning II
The first of 15 pre-production F-35s
Type Multirole fighter
Manufacturer Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Northrop Grumman
BAE Systems
Maiden flight Late 2006 (scheduled)
Introduced 2011 (scheduled)
Status Under development/pre-production
Produced 2003-date

The F-35 Lightning II — previously known as the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) during its development — is a single-seat, single-engined military strike fighter, a multi-role aircraft that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air-to-air combat. Its development is being funded by the United States, the United Kingdom and other partner governments. It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin and major partners BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman.

The JSF program was created to replace various aircraft while keeping development, production, and operating costs down. This was pursued by building three variants of one aircraft, sharing 80% of their parts:

F-35A, a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant slated to replace U.S. Air Force (USAF) F-16 Fighting Falcons and A-10 Thunderbolts, beginning in 2011.
F-35B, a short-takeoff and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant slated to replace the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) AV-8 Harrier IIs, Royal Air Force (RAF) Harrier GR7/9s, and Royal Navy (RN) Sea Harriers, beginning in 2012.
F-35C, a carrier-based variant slated to replace U.S. Navy (USN) F/A-18 Hornets (A/B/C/D variants only) beginning in 2012.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you have a U2U



[edit on 31-8-2006 by masqua]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join