 |
reply posted on 5-6-2007 @ 04:36 AM by Ghost01
|
Originally posted by WestPoint23
As our understanding, manufacturing, design and technological capabilities of VLO aircraft increases so does our ability to make them practical. The
B-2 and F-117 are "old" aircraft which as you pointed out have a lot of issues involved with maintaining their low RCS. Weather, man hours, etc...
The F-22 and F-35 are a different generation, weather and high G don't effect them nor are they as maintenance demanding as the B-2 and F-117.
[edit on 4-6-2007 by WestPoint23] 
Right on! The early VLO aircraft like the F-117 and B-2 used several different types of RAM and other LO materials to achieve stealth. Newer planes
like the F-22 use lewer types of RAM as well as newer types that are much more weather resistant. For example, the RAM paint for the F-117 is what is
known as Iron Ball. Iron Ball is a really old type of RAM origionally developed in the earily 1960's for the A-12 Blackbird. That paint is now over
40 years old. In fact most of the F-117's RAM was developed from the Blackbird prgrams.
To get a good assessment of what the next generation of stealth might be like, we need to look at the evolution of LO technology.
Tim
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 5-6-2007 @ 07:44 AM by Canada_EH
|
Originally posted by WestPoint23
The F-22 is parked and fixed on the flight line and requires less support than an F-15 for example, it's also easier to diagnose and fix.
[edit on 4-6-2007 by WestPoint23] 
The F-15 vs F-22 flightline man hours is a figure that I'm assuming is relative today correct? If the figure is more geared towards when the F-15 was
a newer fighter to the line then the figure would be more representational to the actual difference since a 30 year old fighter is going to take a bit
more work to make airworthy and so on.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 7-6-2007 @ 05:18 AM by Ghost01
|
Originally posted by Canada_EH
The F-15 vs F-22 flightline man hours is a figure that I'm assuming is relative today correct? If the figure is more geared towards when the F-15 was
a newer fighter to the line then the figure would be more representational . . . 
Canada_EH,
I'm sure the Air Force took accounted for airframe age and wear when they developed the figures. If they hadn't these figures would be absolutly
meaningless. What they most likly did is figure out the avrage "Life Cycle" maintance hours for the F-15. By using life cycle maintance hours, they
accounted for the effects of aging, in order to develop a more realistic figure.
Tim
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 7-6-2007 @ 05:44 AM by kilcoo316
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 7-6-2007 @ 05:54 AM by Ghost01
|
Thanks kilcoo316! I know all about Air force lies. These are the people who are still trying to deny that the Groom Lake facility is called Area 51!
You're preaching to the converted! 
My point was only that they had to take that factor into accout, or they would be selling themselves short. They're liars and cheats, but they still
expect people to be honest with them. Take about a study in self-contradiction!
Tim
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-6-2007 @ 07:44 AM by waynos
|
What this thread is lacking, it seems to me, is any representation of the type of aircraft under consideration. In an attempt to put this right I
present the Northrop concept. It very clearly combines what is effectively a scaled up X-47B with B-2 experience.
It may also be that this is not their real concept at all, but by combining these two designs they subtly point out to the USAF why they are the best
team for the job.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-6-2007 @ 09:26 AM by Canada_EH
|
holy waynos thats exactly what I was invisioning! where is the image taken from? its resent since they have the SDB and it sounds like it was released
by northrop for this competion?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-6-2007 @ 09:38 AM by waynos
|
It is published in this weeks Flight International which includes three page report on the programme. If you never buy Flight, buy it this week as its
the Paris Special and includes major articles on not only this but also 747 v A380 with BA, A350XWB progress, future airliner design, the return of
the propfan, the A400M and several others, you really get your three quids worth this week
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-6-2007 @ 09:44 AM by Canada_EH
|
I'm actually in the middle of trying to find which mag I want to surscribe to what would you recommend that would have enough canadian content lol ?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 11-6-2007 @ 01:37 PM by waynos
|
Well Flight can't be all bad, its been going since 1909, lol. Fred T swears by AWST, but I've never seen it myself as its a US mag and I can't
really justify subscribing to two. If you want something more 'glossy' (those two are more industry mags, but you get all the news, from everywhere)
then look at something like Air International or Aircraft Illustrated, both very tempting, in a sweetshop sort of way
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 28-4-2008 @ 11:05 AM by Canada_EH
|
reply to post by waynos
Looking back on that Northrop concept it strikes me as very similar to the lay out of the X-47B Pegasus design. Larger of course and a bit longer but
still similar none the less.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 28-4-2008 @ 11:17 AM by Canada_EH
|
More news on the Bomber platform is the possible news release of the add capability for the plane to preform IRS that could work behind enemy lines.
Now this still seems sorta odd when you take into account that the plane is meant to be sub sonic but could still be interesting none the less. At
this point they are leaning towards (@ least publicly) fielding this on the unmanned version in 2018.
The Aviation Week article goes on the describe how this IRS gather capability has been lacking in the present state of the air force. Through the loss
of the 71 and the need for stand off distance of the UAV's and global hawk as made sure of by lessons like the Georgia UAV shoot down last week and
the Gary Powers shoot down on May 1, 1960.
 Already though, many of the contributing technologies are being funded through classified accounts, Wynne says. The challenge for the system will
be to integrate them together.
One technology hurdle, however, will be to reduce the infrared signature emitted from the bomber’s propulsion system. It remains unclear whether
systems with serpentine exhaust and a reduced signature will be ready for the initial fielding of the bomber in 2018.
www.aviationweek.com...
Neat and needed news for the Air Force mind you they need to look more now into a jammer platform other then the Rhino in my opinion.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |