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.

 

Boeing X-45C Full-Scale Model Revealed

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Sweet pics. I found another link to all funky-looking planes.

www.fondazionesentinel.org...

[edit on 24-7-2004 by dizznod]




posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   
aerospaceweb are you sating that the X-45 and X-47 are in a bidding competition like the X-32 and X-45 was in?

Also thanks for the link, cool pics



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Technically, the JSF program wasn't a competition in the first place. It just evolved into one as the goals of the program became more ambitious. The original goal of JSF, which was called JAST at the time, was to demonstrate that a single fighter could be developed to meet the various needs of the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.

J-UCAS is in a similar situation. It is supposed to be a technology program to test experimental prototypes. That is why the aircraft are given X designations rather than Y, as in the ATF competition between the YF-22 and YF-23. The goal of the program is to "to demonstrate the technical feasibility, military utility and operational value for a networked system of high performance, weaponized unmanned air vehicles to effectively and affordably prosecute 21st century combat missions, including Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), surveillance, and precision strike within the emerging global command and control architecture."

Regardless, most people expect that J-UCAS will ultimately turn into a competition with a winner and a loser, just like JSF did. The winning aircraft will peobably be redesignated as the A-45 or A-47, just like the X-35 becamse the F-35 once Lockheed Martin was awarded a production contract.

However, only time will tell whether the UCAV is truly here to stay. The main advantage of such aircraft is supposed to be lower costs. However, both the X-45 and X-47 have become so complex and sophisticated that they are nearly as large and perhaps as expensive as a manned attack aircraft. If the J-UCAS program does not prove that UCAVs are superior to manned planes, then the entire effort could end up being cancelled before a winner is selected.

For comparison, consider the Global Hawk reconnaissance UAV. It too was intended to be a less expensive aircraft than the manned planes it would replace. However, the UAV is currently so expensive that the USAF has threatened to cancel it and buy more U-2s. I doubt that will happen at this point, but it goes to show that the jury is still out on whether unmanned aircraft truly offer any significant advantages over manned ones.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Yeah, I like it but It's for the Air Force not the navy so I wish they would of made it bigger. I mean it only hold 2000 lb. of explosives.


I don't kn w about that. Cost is a huge issue. as well as surviability. Which would you rather have 1 that could carry say 10000 lbs or 5 that can confuse and sturate enemy defences and if you hit one you still have 4 roaming aroound to hit thier targets.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   

I don't kn w about that. Cost is a huge issue. as well as surviability. Which would you rather have 1 that could carry say 10000 lbs or 5 that can confuse and sturate enemy defences and if you hit one you still have 4 roaming aroound to hit thier targets.


Yes FredT that is the idea by having them smaller they are almost impossible to detect on radar due to their shape and size but if you make them bigger they can stand up more so by having them hold only 2000 you can have 4 of them dropping PGM's the X-45 will be hard to detect its only 3 feet thick



[edit on 25-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes FredT that is the idea by having them smaller they are almost impossible to detect on radar due to their shape and size but if you make them bigger they can stand up more so by having them hold


Actually Westpoint, according to Ben Rich, its not the size its the shape. Rich claims to have designed a Aircraft carrier that would have shown up on radar as the size of rowboat. Thats pretty dang small. The navy was not interested. The B-2 which is huge has a smaller RCS that the F-117. He also said the faciting concept could be applied to submarines as well. They would be slow but undetectable.

But the premise of alot of drones vs. a few has premise. The AF has done research on Swarm theory. Can you imagine hundreds of these things swarming around a target area. You could not knock them all down. Maybe with a EMP weapon, but you would have to pop it off over your own area



[edit on 25-7-2004 by FredT]



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Very cool pic. It looks like a mini B2 bomber. I am sure this is not by chance. It seems the us is moving more and more into pilot less vicheals of all kinds. The problem with that is we may see it as allowing more war like attacks on other countries because no pilots, ground troops are endangered by using them. A very dangerous precedent.


E_T

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Actually Westpoint, according to Ben Rich, its not the size its the shape. Rich claims to have designed a Aircraft carrier that would have shown up on radar as the size of rowboat. Thats pretty dang small. The navy was not interested. The B-2 which is huge has a smaller RCS that the F-117.

And materials.
Even B-2s RCS is in class of very small bird.

Here's very interesting table:
www.aerospaceweb.org...
(Well, I really don't believe F-15 RCS being so big compared to BUFF)

Same for RAH-66 Comanche

And its RCS might be even smaller than what Hellfire has.

www.centennialofflight.gov...



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Very cool pic. It looks like a mini B2 bomber. I am sure this is not by chance.



There has been reports of a so called "Baby B-2" by Airplane buffs for a long time before this thing was anounced looks like those people were not making this stuff up.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Of course you can make anything stealthy and the stealthy carrier your talking about look on the thread CVNX on weaponry forum also like the DDX destroyers which will be seen or radar as a small fishing boat. But by having these UAV's smaller and using already stealth tech n them then they will be 10x harder to detect than regular stealth aircraft.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   


It'd be a awesome sight to see one flying at low-level over my or your house....hehe.



umm depends which country you live in...wouldnt wanna see one over my house in iraq...lol. well, then again, if there was one overhead, i'd probably be dead before i ever saw it...



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by E_T
Here's very interesting table:
www.aerospaceweb.org...
(Well, I really don't believe F-15 RCS being so big compared to BUFF)


The table you cite is on my website. If you read the paragraph below it, there are some disclaimers about the data it contains:

"I've seen the values listed for the B-52, B-1A, and B-1B before, so I believe they are probably pretty reliable. The RCS for the F-15, however, seems rather high and may represent a large but very narrow peak from the head-on aspect as opposed to a more typical medianized value. Other sources indicate that the RCS for the F-15 is between 5 and 25 m2, which seems far more reasonable. RCS measurements for the F-22, F-117, and B-2 are highly classified, as the SR-71 may also still be, so I strongly doubt the accuracy of the values listed above. Those numbers are most likely educated guesses, at best. Regardless of these deficiencies, the table does provide a good example of the trends in lowering RCS and the significant improvements that have been made since the advent of stealth aircraft."

[edit on 25-7-2004 by aerospaceweb]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join