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

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.

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

Originally posted by Ghost01
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.

Tim... need I remind you the Air Force would happily lie its way to another 40 F-22s?






I reckon the numbers released to congress, and the numbers that pass between the pentagon and lockheed are slightly different

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by Ghost01
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.

Tim... need I remind you the Air Force would happily lie its way to another 40 F-22s?

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

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.

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?

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

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 ?

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