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.

 

UCLASS '80,000 lb AMRAAM carrying refueller'

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
news.usni.org...

'won't be as stealthy as an F-35C' line made me laugh like a drain. The F-35 programme survives as its the only manned EODAS carrying airframe available. If there was another manned asset with it available, the F-35 project in its entirety would be binned post haste.

Should be interesting to see these gargantuan beasts roll off the line in the near future.


edit on 1-1-2014 by Astr0 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Astr0
 


Pretty awesome lookin there. Too bad its not manned.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Sounds kind of like the "new concept" band wagon is getting itself overloaded with "new requirements" every time a "new piece of hardware" gets conceptualised....they forgot their own KISS principal that has stood military requirements the best for almost ever....they always ask too much of the design and # it up with extras.....
Probly be another F 35 ......good for everything, and good for nothing......
edit on 1-1-2014 by stirling because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Agreed.
Mission creep will overtake the best of R&D concepts and turn them into cows....

Ak



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AkHolic
 


I am going to throw you down another pathway of thought, and it involves the F-35C itself.

If you read through this article it is glaringly obvious to me that the USN has now sat back and said 'the F-35C is short ranged, poorly armed and lacks persistence and penetration capabilities but we need EODAS like a fish needs water'.

(do not be fooled by the line 'it will not be as stealthy as the F-35C' as it (the F-35) has the signature of a non-VLO airframe such as the Rafale from all aspects to anything bar X band radars at head on) (If you doubt this, explain to me why a 'stealth aircraft' would be needing an active jammer developed for it and show me the jammer pod for the F-22 or F-117)

(Granted the B-2B does have onboard active jamming capability but with an all aspects VVLO signature this is easier to accommodate than on the barn door F-35)

So, to sum it up. The USN in my opinion has looked at China, # bricks, and is of now scrambling a fast reactive effort to get more missiles and fuel into the arena before they are locked out the area altogether.

RIP NATF, you are sorely missed






edit on 2-1-2014 by Astr0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Astr0
reply to post by AkHolic
 


(do not be fooled by the line 'it will not be as stealthy as the F-35C' as it (the F-35) has the signature of a non-VLO airframe such as the Rafale from all aspects to anything bar X band radars at head on) (If you doubt this, explain to me why a 'stealth aircraft' would be needing an active jammer developed for it and show me the jammer pod for the F-22 or F-117)


F-22 has an active EW suite as well. In fact, the Barracuda the F-35 will use is derived from it. The B-2 has a much more advanced suite.
RCS-reduction doesn't make you invisible. It simply allows you to close the gap before detection. Once within detection range, a VLO relies on it's EW-suite in the same manner as any other aircraft (arguably less so, as the return-signal to hide is weaker). Why wouldn't you want an EW-suite on a VLO fighter?


The advantage of the VLO or XLO platform is the ability to engage on your terms while remaining outside the threat-detection bubble. An active EW-suite not only increases your ability to survive within the threat-detection bubble (which is much larger with an aircraft like the Rafale), it also enhances your ability to disengage and reestablish this advantage.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   

_Del_
F-22 has an active EW suite as well. In fact, the Barracuda the F-35 will use is derived from it. The B-2 has a much more advanced suite.


Internal my friend, internal. I'm thinking bar of soap through water rather than high speed brick through thick marshmallow.

Slip slide through, not splash like a hippo from a 30 meter high board.

Hanging an abortion off the wing to make the much vaunted 'Stealth Fighter' perform as touted in its clean configuration is NOT progress.

This is a flying abortion of an aircraft bar the EODAS. No EODAS? this craft would get laughed at from all quarters.




RCS-reduction doesn't make you invisible. It simply allows you to close the gap before detection.


The lower the numbers the closer you get, and again, refer back to my flying abortion comment. Its touted as a 'stealth' aircraft, but in reality it is a single aspect single spectrum lower than an untreated airframe 'stealth' aircraft. The 'Silent Eagle' proves my point as they have numbers down to F-35 levels on head on aspects. The 'Silent Hornet' ditto. The 35 is NOT progress in any shape bar....EODAS.



Once within detection range, a VLO relies on it's EW-suite in the same manner as any other aircraft (arguably less so, as the return-signal to hide is weaker). Why wouldn't you want an EW-suite on a VLO fighter?


I do, but not a damn pod off the wing. Day 1 effort and dangling a pod? nice effort. What ever happened to effective and internal? All those fancy presentations of clean F-35s going down town into harms way all on their lonesome (yes, PR is a wonderful world devoid of reality) really do seem to be the thing of nightmares in an airframe that is only slightly better than a '4th generation aircraft' to anything but X band. From the front. How does that flying backwards work again?


The advantage of the VLO or XLO platform is the ability to engage on your terms while remaining outside the threat-detection bubble. An active EW-suite not only increases your ability to survive within the threat-detection bubble (which is much larger with an aircraft like the Rafale), it also enhances your ability to disengage and reestablish this advantage.


The above is very true, am not going to argue this. However, if you have the turning capability of a F-4 Phantom and the acceleration of a rickshaw laden down with fatties, how do you think getting out of the fight is possible? hell, how do you think choosing where to fight is possible?

My thoughts on this pig suckling abortion of an airframe will not change now, or ever. It was touted much like the WW2 'Wonder Weapons', a 'cure all' from ground attack to air to air.

In reality it is slow (dangerously so), ineffective (I'd not want to see an f-35 try the Gulf War day 1 hour 1 strike missions the F-117s carried out) with only a single saving grace.

EODAS.

Where there to be an EODAS style capable airframe available from a competitor, the F35 would of been binned years ago on the technology front with the cost debacle the icing on the cake.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Why do I see the F-111 round two here?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Astr0
Hanging an abortion off the wing to make the much vaunted 'Stealth Fighter' perform as touted in its clean configuration is NOT progress.

Are you talking about the Navy/USMC Next Generation Jammer? It's primarily for the Growler. The Navy plans on flying a mix of stealthy F-35C's and not so stealthy F-18's (not to mention support aircraft). The F-35's will be outnumbered by their legacy deckmates for sometime. You can see why they want a wide-area jammer.
The F-35 idea is headed up by the Marine Corps to replace the EA-6 hand me downs. Neither the Air Force or the Navy has talked about hanging them from F-35's. You might notice that the Marine Corps is involved in a lot of close air support over the FLOT/FEBA. They fly a number of fixed wing and rotary aircraft there. Those aircraft aren't particularly stealthy. You might imagine why they want a survivable wide-area jammer for that purpose. Why they are using the F-35 instead of the F-18 like the Navy, I do not know. Maybe because the F-35B can be deployed from an amphib deck and doesn't need support the presence of the squids.




The lower the numbers the closer you get, and again, refer back to my flying abortion comment. Its touted as a 'stealth' aircraft, but in reality it is a single aspect single spectrum lower than an untreated airframe 'stealth' aircraft. The 'Silent Eagle' proves my point as they have numbers down to F-35 levels on head on aspects. The 'Silent Hornet' ditto. The 35 is NOT progress in any shape bar....EODAS.

To my knowledge actual RCS numbers have not been released for either program. I agree that frontal RCS #'s are a bit of a scam/marketing. Having said that, the Silent Eagle doesn't seem to have a blocker in the inlets. I'm guessing this puts the frontal RCS much higher than the F-35.
If you really think the lower-hemisphere or beam signature spikes on the Silent Eagle or Hornet will be the same as the F-35, however, then I don't know how to help you. No amount of RAM is going to help overcoming the shaping.



I do, but not a damn pod off the wing. Day 1 effort and dangling a pod? nice effort. What ever happened to effective and internal? All those fancy presentations of clean F-35s going down town into harms way all on their lonesome (yes, PR is a wonderful world devoid of reality) really do seem to be the thing of nightmares in an airframe that is only slightly better than a '4th generation aircraft' to anything but X band. From the front.

The Barracuda system uses the several integral arrays on the F-35. It isn't in a pod. The only person planning on hanging pods from the F-35 is the USMC. For reasons previously stated.



The above is very true, am not going to argue this. However, if you have the turning capability of a F-4 Phantom and the acceleration of a rickshaw laden down with fatties, how do you think getting out of the fight is possible? hell, how do you think choosing where to fight is possible?

This is always a blind alley, b/c while the F-35's acceleration #'s (and as it applies to sustained turning radius) are not world beating, they are competitive and are never compared with legacy aircraft with a similar load-out. The Su-27 isn't going to be clean. It's going to have all sorts of draggy/heavy/RCS-inducing crap hanging off of it. Same with all legacy aircraft.


My thoughts on this pig suckling abortion of an airframe will not change now, or ever. It was touted much like the WW2 'Wonder Weapons', a 'cure all' from ground attack to air to air.

Well, then there is no reason to debate. You've made up your mind.
I'm not a huge fan of the program. It's been terribly run and was only pushed through due to multi-service intransigence ("They won't cancel a joint-program; let's stick all our eggs in one basket"). Most the F-35 hate, however, never leaves an alternative and is frequently fact-faulty.


In reality it is slow (dangerously so), ineffective (I'd not want to see an f-35 try the Gulf War day 1 hour 1 strike missions the F-117s carried out).

Well, considering the F-117 was retired well before the F-35 was introduced, I think it's fair to say the people who actually have seen real numbers disagreed with you.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

JIMC5499
Why do I see the F-111 round two here?


The program as it's developed? Definitely. Would have been cheaper to leave out the V/STOL varient requirement at the very least. Institutional hubris on the development path aside, I suspect you'll see a pretty effective warplane at the end of the day.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


I'm referring to the UCLASS not the F-35.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Ah, well, 80,000 lbs put you at right about that size. Sounds abit like an old Missileer in concept with ISR and tanking capability.
en.wikipedia.org...

Obviously it wouldn't look anything like that, but it's interesting. This program is so far away from cutting metal, that I'm not sure I'd take anything for granted. Only a few months ago they had hacked away at all the requirements. Time lines like "by 2030" mean this is a long way from fruition. It'll be interesting to see how the idea continues to evolve.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Would be cool to see such a huge UAV flying off an aircraft carrier. Surprised it won't be more stealthy than F-35, given the geometry advantages a flying wing has...
edit on 10/1/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join