aww man all the misinformation was corrected...i was planning to be a nazi about this...since this is my area of expertise...
actually scram jets are probably the future, and yes the F-22 and JSF(all 3 versions) are not cancelled and arecompletely different, and made my lockheed martin not northdrop...
BTW what someone said about composites being to brittle...there is actually now a new composite that is able to withstand a huge ratio of structure:weight:thickness....but it is planned for space fighting vehicles and much of that is still calssified...also any new super sonic plane would be unammed of course, so weight and building such a huge aricraft like the SR-71, are not really a factor anymore....
Just some speculation...but I belive that our satelitte tech is amazing, we just do not know the half of it...I mean a satelitte that was built 6 years ago was just declassified that it could focus in on a dime lying on the ground, and focus enough to see the date without secondary computer enhancement...wow! im looking for link now
actually scram jets are probably the future, and yes the F-22 and JSF(all 3 versions) are not cancelled and arecompletely different, and made my lockheed martin not northdrop...
BTW what someone said about composites being to brittle...there is actually now a new composite that is able to withstand a huge ratio of structure:weight:thickness....but it is planned for space fighting vehicles and much of that is still calssified...also any new super sonic plane would be unammed of course, so weight and building such a huge aricraft like the SR-71, are not really a factor anymore....
Just some speculation...but I belive that our satelitte tech is amazing, we just do not know the half of it...I mean a satelitte that was built 6 years ago was just declassified that it could focus in on a dime lying on the ground, and focus enough to see the date without secondary computer enhancement...wow! im looking for link now
to someone that said the F22 is not invisible to radar...actually it sort of is...someone said the russians have powerful enough radar to spot it well...BS, learn your facts before you post...the F22 is not "invisible" but has a low profile radar signature as someone said...but the signature is so small that when combined avionic sensor jamming ect...a whole 8vs2 dog fight of F-15 eagles good not even spot it with their own radar, nor the ground command, which was monitoring the flight (and this is training and testing, where they do not go full stealth for safety reasons)...which i bet has pretty much more sophisticated radar than the russians.....
That would be an unwise bet. Russian Radar and Missle tech is almost universally accepted to be more advanced than the US right now by most neutral observers. IE: Janes, FAS.
btw I am not sure if we peaked or not but the need for a high speed high altitude recon plane has diminished greatly since we developed satelites to perform the same job.
It isnt surpring that our spy plane development basically peaked in the 1960s. After the 60s we had enough technology to launch recon into space that will be there for a long time to come and can hit anywhere on the earth within hours.
No risk of losing a pilot, and no risk of a plane crashing into a soveirgn nations territory.
It isnt surpring that our spy plane development basically peaked in the 1960s. After the 60s we had enough technology to launch recon into space that will be there for a long time to come and can hit anywhere on the earth within hours.
No risk of losing a pilot, and no risk of a plane crashing into a soveirgn nations territory.
I'd like to see that link. My wife's thesis was on satellilte imagery. And in her opinon (and I'd call her a bigger expert than any of us here) there is no way you'd even remotely close to get resolution approaching that... even disregarding the Atmosphere which is a HUGE problem for fine res. Cripes, it'd need to be someting like 1/16". I think that US DoD might have <1'.. which is damn good.
my point exactly....If Clarence Kelly designed the SR-71, U-2 and others using slide rules and other "modern" tools what the heck can they make now with CAD and virtual 3-d programs....heck even Boeing used it on the 777....theres planes out there that we just dont know about and live with it.
Have Blue, the predecessor was started in the 1970's....evolved into the F-117A which wasnt publicly announced until 1991 when it was used in the Gulf war....close to 20 years there.....
Space fighting vehicles? Satellite focusing on a dime and reading the date? Utter crap.
The reason the SR-71 was so large is because it needed to carry a lot of fuel. Whether you have a person in it or not, it will still need to carry a lot of fuel to travel thousands of miles per hour over great distances.
I think it can be argued that our reliance on computers has made the engineers less capable people. The technology has advanced by the conceptualization ability has diminished. Aside from Burt Rutan, I don't see many people doing anything really innovative. They're merely building upon what we already know. In other words, they are making any revolutionary progress, they're just making evolutionary progress. Once in a while a great mind comes along that does revolutionary things, but I don't see them around today. Sadly, corporate culture views such people to be too maverick and risky.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
That's the problem. There are plenty of engineers who would LOVE to do some of these maverick things that would push the frontiers, but many corporations are unwilling to take risks. This is ESPECIALLY true in the stagnant aerospace industry (see the Boeing BWB project).
ha ha ha...right on, nothing like siting in a titanium "bath tub." Those planes can take a beating and still kick some major arse. BTW....another plane designed in the '70's
91TTZ, totally agree with you....but as So pointed out there are few mavrick aeronautical companies these days...too much money at risk so they go with a "safe" design, but whos saying Rutan HASN'T developed an uber spy plane...he's pratically designed everything else....................
definatly cool :thumbsup:. Also follows my own personal mantra pretty well. "When in doubt, blow it out".
Spike
Diamond Member
- Aug 27, 2001
- 6,770
- 1
- 81
I thought it was generally accepted that the russians had better radar at closer range, something about tighter arcs that could detect stealthy aircraft if they had it in their arc. I am not sure about their missles, there AA-11's (older, I know) are supposedy inferior to the new AIM-9x's and I did not know they had anything that could match a AIM-120 AMRAAM but alot of my data is based of a few years older Janes books.
The F-22 is defintily a cool aircraft, it's low-observable and thurst vectoring (not to mentioon super-cruise) give it some awesome abilities and the fact that it's internal bays are decent size allow it to carry a good air-to-air load. I read that it's air to ground load would be minimal (a few 500 lb JDAMS) but thats not it's main purpose.
The F-35 seems like a cool jet for the price but is still pretty weak compared to the F-22. They share alot of the same components (and even look) but the 35 has it's eye towars air to ground, STOL, and carrier-borne ability.
My favorite planes are still the hornets (and now the super-hornets, F/A-18 E/F) and the good 'ol AC-130U spectre gunship. Nothing like firing a 105mm (it is 105, correct?) out the side of a cargo plane...
-spike
The F-22 is defintily a cool aircraft, it's low-observable and thurst vectoring (not to mentioon super-cruise) give it some awesome abilities and the fact that it's internal bays are decent size allow it to carry a good air-to-air load. I read that it's air to ground load would be minimal (a few 500 lb JDAMS) but thats not it's main purpose.
The F-35 seems like a cool jet for the price but is still pretty weak compared to the F-22. They share alot of the same components (and even look) but the 35 has it's eye towars air to ground, STOL, and carrier-borne ability.
My favorite planes are still the hornets (and now the super-hornets, F/A-18 E/F) and the good 'ol AC-130U spectre gunship. Nothing like firing a 105mm (it is 105, correct?) out the side of a cargo plane...
-spike
The R77 is arguably better than the AIM120 in many respects and the R73 heetie almost without question better than any current Sidewinder. It can even be fired rearward!
Spike
Diamond Member
- Aug 27, 2001
- 6,770
- 1
- 81
But how does that compare to the AIM-9X?
The reports I have seen say the R77 is "similar" to the AMRAAM and that the ramjet AMRAAM was tested over the gulf and works well (that report came out of Janes Defense Weekly). What the status of the R77M (ramjet model)?
The R73 is the same thing as the AA-11, the AA-11 is just the NATO designation. I was not aware it was that much better than current sidwinders though the thrust vectoring is pretty cool
-spike
Well, as you are probably aware the 9X has better off-aspect capability than the earlier models, which makes it closer to the R73, but I'd give the thrust vectoring and the edge in range of the Russian missile the nod. It really is a great missile. 
I'm dating a girl with a top secret clearance at lockheed. She's not allowed to tell me what she does but I get the feeling it's got something to do with advanced propulsion. Get her started with carbon nanotubes and other advanced materials and she doesn't shut up about it. I know it falls under the "black projects" area though.
I wish I knew what they were working on.
I wish I knew what they were working on.
woman that talks enthusiastically about nanotubes and advanced materials = instant hotness in my book :thumbsup:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter