It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nick Kaloterakis has worked as a senior 3D/VFX artist for 12 years in post production and is currently based in Sydney, where he runs his own design studio, "kollected".
“I draw inspiration from a keen interest in photography, drawing and graphic design to provide the realistic intricacies required to deliver an exceptional piece of work.
I am passionate about perfecting the aesthetic as well as technical value of my work, constantly challenging myself to take ideas to the next level.
I have extensive experience in animation, compositing, hard and soft surface modeling, vfx, CGI with live action, specialising in lighting TD and have used this in tvc, broadcast, film and print.
My work has been featured on the cover of Popular Science magazine for the past four years and also has been featured in campaigns by Sony, Qantas, Foxtel, New York Times, National Geographic, Australian TV networks, Saatchi & Saatchi, Discovery Channel.
Kollected has afforded me the opportunity to extend my skills and vision into a variety of areas and to work with young designers and artists keen to challenge traditional theories and explore the infinite possibilities of digital art."
Most stealth coatings consist of a radar-absorbing material, typically a form of iron, suspended in paint. But they are heavy (which lowers fuel efficiency), need to be reapplied frequently, and don't absorb all radar frequencies. Ceno Technologies, a particles-science company in Sanborn, New York, has developed a lighter, more durable coating that uses hollow ceramic spheres, called cenospheres. Because the spheres can be covered in carbon, silver or other metals that absorb slightly different wavelengths of radar, the coating can be customised to deceive specific radar systems.
The B2 has two semi-flush air-intake vents, the hard edges of which can reflect radar. In one design seen in a patent from Northrop Grumman, the new bomber has four small vents rather than two large ones. The smaller vents can be buried more deeply in the wing, reducing the possibility of radar returns.
To confuse radar defense systems, the new bomber will probably carry something like the Miniature Air Launched Decoy made by Raytheon. The modified drones use radar reflectors to create bomber-like signatures that divert attention from the actual bomber. The decoys fly on a preprogrammed course for up to 925 kilometres and may carry radar jammers to further confuse air defenses.
In one design from Northrop Grumman, engineers included a canard wing on the plane's nose, which would provide extra lift during takeoff and flight, allowing a smaller bomber to carry a heavier weapons payload. Because its straight lines and hard angles would reflect radar, the canard wing will most likely be designed to fold flush with the bomber's body as the craft comes within range of defense systems.
The new bomber will most likely have a single weapons bay, as opposed to the twin bays on the B2. It will still be able to carry conventional GPS-guided JDAM missiles, nuclear warheads and even the new 14,000-kilogram, bunker-busting Massive Ordnance Penetrator, but a single bay would reduce the cost of manufacturing-a major concern for designers on a relatively tight budget.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by SoulVisions
Are you trying to tell us that this:
Is the next generation bomber?
NX-2 - Swing-wing canard design for nuclear-powered bomber, with two tail-mounted GE X211 (modified from J87) pushers, was deemed unrealistic because of radioactive exhaust and cancelled in 1956. No production.
Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by clay2 baraka
The F-117A was/is a joke as is the B-2. Both subsonic craft from an era long since gone. The name of the game is not "stealth." Heat-seeking defense systems may be line-of-sight but they work wonderfully well for catching up to tail pipes of slow targets!
As there is no successor to the shuttle, there is no successor to the old concept of "bomber." Just as there is no successor to the concept of sea-going "battleship" and even, OMG, "flat tops." Those concepts simply don't work anymore when long-standoff missiles are--and will be--the norm for battles.
Please study the thousands of reports about triangles in the last thirty years and you will understand where modrn weaponary has advanced. The high ground is space these days, and UFO-like vehicles.
Originally posted by SoulVisions
Even the new battleships being produced right now prove your statement invalid.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
there are new battleships being built?? I know this is an aviation forum - but I link would be wonderful thanks