Jump to content
Clark Griswold

Concept aircraft

Recommended Posts

I'm too dumb and can't...why would they cancel it if it was successful?

The conspiracy theory part of me figured it made no sense. Then at the wright patt museum i saw the "Wyvern" I think it was called having from the ceiling....I figure these designs are NASA or something by now like the thrust vectoring f-16 of the day (I think also hanging at wright patt)

 

Nothing radical...Proven flyable designs with existing computers from our current 5th gen line. Why not?

 

Again, speculation, but on Wikipedia you can draw a lot of conclusions on what's doable and what's not.

 

All of this is assuming manned aircraft stay around of course. Personally I think subsonic tailess uav's are going to rule before 6th gen manned ever gets built.

 

Tailless Ucavs are already refueling and landing on carriers autonomously if you check out YouTube. Pretty amazing stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1c27f22e0a12cb39d3ea3daedb3031b3.jpg

For anyone who's been to wright patt...that concept jet above the -22...pretty cool (looking) concept. No idea what implications a wing design like that has on stealth or maneuverability but it's pretty sweet. Anyone know the unclassified backstory on it?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, di1630 said:

 Anyone know the unclassified backstory on it?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Documentary

Google for the win.

The Boeing Bird of Prey was a black project aircraft, intended to demonstrate stealth technology. It was developed by McDonnell Douglas and Boeing in the 1990s. The company provided $67 million of funding for the project; it was a low-cost program compared to many other programs of similar scale. It developed technology and materials which would later be used on Boeing's X-45 unmanned combat air vehicle. As an internal project, this aircraft was not given an X-plane designation. There are no public plans to make this a production aircraft. It is characterized as a technology demonstrator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Bird_of_Prey

Edited by FourFans130
less of a jackass response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx, I think I incorrectly called it the wyvern previously. Pretty amazing that thing flew in the 90's but then again seeing the F-22 was essentially designed in the early 80's while the aim-7/aim-9L was still king, you can see why there is a challenge to stay ahead in design to interface with weapons and future threats when it takes 20 years from concept to operational. Luckily our peer threats seem to lag even farther.

Anyone think that someday our enemies will develop laser based defenses?

Can't outrun or out maneuver the speed of light.

Also, anyone go to the Paris Airshow this year? I heard there might be some impressive concept UCAV types showing there.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thx, I think I incorrectly called it the wyvern previously. Pretty amazing that thing flew in the 90's but then again seeing the F-22 was essentially designed in the early 80's while the aim-7/aim-9L was still king, you can see why there is a challenge to stay ahead in design to interface with weapons and future threats when it takes 20 years from concept to operational. Luckily our peer threats seem to lag even farther.

 

Anyone think that someday our enemies will develop laser based defenses?

 

Can't outrun or out maneuver the speed of light.

 

Baseops Network Forums

 

You should talk to the nice lady on the directed energy desk at MSIC. She will paint your a terrifying picture.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Directed energy is the future - it's not far off time-wise and it's scary as hell. We do not have that market cornered either. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Future scenario with DE use envisioned via datalink cue at the 2:30:00 mark...

For the first generation DE aircraft mounted weapons, build a multi-engine attack aircraft with payload bay either around a tactical laser system or built with it in mind at least (power / cooling / targeting) readily available  

Two engines for the power generation, recessed bay for at least a reduced signature until your ready to deploy the laser turret and give the target some love.

hawx_dlc_screen_a12-avenger-6.jpg

McDonnell-Douglas-A-12-Avenger-II-Model-

Resurrecting the Flying Dorito (A-12) would be an ideal platform IMO, designed with two weapons bays, one could hold the laser system, other for PGM / Defensive AAMs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2017 at 2:31 AM, Lawman said:

 


Phone autocorrected it.

MSIC, part of that huge Intel apparatus we own/ignore/misuse...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_and_Space_Intelligence_Center


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was a great course. I wish I had attended when I was more senior/experienced as a tactical aviator, I feel I would have assimilated more of the information.

That's what they get for sending a Marine with a social science degree from FSU!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2017 at 2:30 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Resurrecting the Flying Dorito (A-12) would be an ideal platform IMO, designed with two weapons bays, one could hold the laser system, other for PGM / Defensive AAMs

 

Would you need AAMs with lasers?

Regardless, I don't think I want to be in the game when that stuff is around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you need AAMs with lasers?
Regardless, I don't think I want to be in the game when that stuff is around.

I think you would (still need AAMs) - I'm not an expert on lasers but for air to air I think the use DE weapons will be further down the road than the use against ground targets- for use against a fast moving and maneuvering airborne target will require a shit load of energy imparted to the target for the short period of time before the target defensively maneuvers - just my guess but I suspect the first gen of aircraft mounted lasers (in fighter/attack) will probably need a longer period of time illuminating their targets to be effective than an enemy air vehicle will allow - now large aircraft with large lasers like the ABL in a 747 are a different animal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:


I think you would (still need AAMs) - I'm not an expert on lasers but for air to air I think the use DE weapons will be further down the road than the use against ground targets- for use against a fast moving and maneuvering airborne target will require a shit load of energy imparted to the target for the short period of time before the target defensively maneuvers - just my guess but I suspect the first gen of aircraft mounted lasers (in fighter/attack) will probably need a longer period of time illuminating their targets to be effective than an enemy air vehicle will allow - now large aircraft with large lasers like the ABL in a 747 are a different animal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's probably valid. I'll buy that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's probably valid. I'll buy that argument.

It's the ground based you'll need to worry about. If I recall correctly, the Israelis had a prototype that could take out an artillery round or a mortar. That was a decade ago. And if they apply even a fraction of the AI already available to Google through their visual recognition efforts, it could conceivably track, ID, and target you without any detectable signal. If the laser is powerful enough to punch through a plane in say... three seconds... It would be pretty hard to beat it before it beat you.

Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's the ground based you'll need to worry about. If I recall correctly, the Israelis had a prototype that could take out an artillery round or a mortar. That was a decade ago. And if they apply even a fraction of the AI already available to Google through their visual recognition efforts, it could conceivably track, ID, and target you without any detectable signal. If the laser is powerful enough to punch through a plane in say... three seconds... It would be pretty hard to beat it before it beat you.

Sent from my Vitamix 450x Professional using Tapatalk

Yup - current efforts are on drones and inbound rounds but it's inevitable for DE to target manned...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam

http://www.popsci.com/israels-rafael-shows-off-anti-drone-laser-in-korea

ironbeam.jpg?itok=Pw1i7Tsv

But for aircraft, the gunship is the logical first step...

Concept laser armed gunships:

atl-gunship.jpg  

combatlaser-1.jpg

20170305_laser.jpg

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-05/us-air-force-unveils-combat-laser-guns-ac-130-gunships

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/us-air-force-combat-lasers-for-both.html

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/11/boeing_atl_advanced_tactical_laser_fitted/

 

 

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you would (still need AAMs) - I'm not an expert on lasers but for air to air I think the use DE weapons will be further down the road than the use against ground targets- for use against a fast moving and maneuvering airborne target will require a shit load of energy imparted to the target for the short period of time before the target defensively maneuvers - just my guess but I suspect the first gen of aircraft mounted lasers (in fighter/attack) will probably need a longer period of time illuminating their targets to be effective than an enemy air vehicle will allow - now large aircraft with large lasers like the ABL in a 747 are a different animal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Key thing to that box you're thinking in... DE opens up a new form of Kill that can be achieved.

Right now AAMs and other weapons are meant to primarily cause catastrophic structural failure across an airframe with secondary effects being destruction of vital systems and components. Missile hits jet... either wings come off and crumble under stress or hydraulic lines are all shot away and it's over for that thing in 30 seconds when it augers in.

We aren't necessarily targeting the same things DE anti-air is attacking. Essentially you don't need to kill the jet, the jet will do that just fine.... once you completely blind the pilot from millisecond exposure while they are attempting to maneuver around the battlefield.

That's the whole purpose behind all the Chinese systems currently fielded, destroy EO/FLIR sensors at range and destroy pilots. The aircraft or drone becomes effectively useless. You can protect with those fancy visors on set spectrums but the only way to negate the whole EM spectrum of lasers currently leaves a surface that can't be used visually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lawman said:

 


Key thing to that box you're thinking in... DE opens up a new form of Kill that can be achieved.

Right now AAMs and other weapons are meant to primarily cause catastrophic structural failure across an airframe with secondary effects being destruction of vital systems and components. Missile hits jet... either wings come off and crumble under stress or hydraulic lines are all shot away and it's over for that thing in 30 seconds when it augers in.

We aren't necessarily targeting the same things DE anti-air is attacking. Essentially you don't need to kill the jet, the jet will do that just fine.... once you completely blind the pilot from millisecond exposure while they are attempting to maneuver around the battlefield.

That's the whole purpose behind all the Chinese systems currently fielded, destroy EO/FLIR sensors at range and destroy pilots. The aircraft or drone becomes effectively useless. You can protect with those fancy visors on set spectrums but the only way to negate the whole EM spectrum of lasers currently leaves a surface that can't be used visually.

 

Valid point

Operationally disable is the first objective, destruction is secondary.

Continuing the sidebar topic, 20 lb brains are thinking about it...

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA570475

Just thinking about this a bit, what's the defense?  

Besides stealth, stand off range, defensive maneuvering,,,

Reflective coatings, mirrored quick deploying shields (for cockpit windows, probably preemptive), fully enclosed visor systems (no natural light, only video projection) and / or quick retract sensor pods / turrets?  

Just initial ideas.

More on concept aircraft with lasers... Apache with a tactical laser..

http://www.interestingtechnology.net/us-air-force-attaches-high-energy-laser-to-ah-64-apache-attack-helicopter/

us-air-force-attaches-high-energy-laser-

 

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In June 2014, Airbus tested a quarter-scale demonstrator off the coast of Singapore. The demonstrator flew to 3 km and was piloted from a barge."

Holy smokes! 3 kilometers up! Call the Smithsonian.

"The vehicle currently in development at Airbus will carry four passengers as high as 100 kilometers, and be able to take off and land at a conventional airport. According to Airbus, the vehicle will operate in between the standard airplane and satellite altitudes, and open up a whole new market segment. The spaceplane could be used as a transfer service or for experiments and work in a part of space not occupied by many other vehicles."

It'll be used for pay-for-trophy "space" tourism, and you can bet every flight will be "Certified to have crossed the 100km Kármán Line" no matter how far up it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

"It'll be used for pay-for-trophy "space" tourism, and you can bet every flight will be "Certified to have crossed the 100km Kármán Line" no matter how far up it goes.

I sure as hell hope so. I realize that no one is going to shoot my ass into space for NASA so I want space plane based tourism to succeed and bring the cost down to somewhere in the middle class mid-life crisis range (10k to 20k) range so for 5 minutes I can float and see the pale blue dot from up high.

More spaceplanes:

Chinese proposal:

http://www.popsci.com/china-plans-space-plane-for-tourists

chinaspaceplane.jpg?itok=DpoFlw8d&fc=50,

And a really interesting NASA concept from the 70's (like a XB-70 Valkyrie on steroids) that would be a good National / Strategic project for reinvigoration of Space Exploration / Settlement:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ezvj4j/the-747-to-space-that-never-was

http://www.alternatewars.com/SpaceRace/Star_Raker/Star_Raker.htm

144284520767294.png

1442845280437991.png

1442845000844181.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×