Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Octavius on February 21, 2001, 10:12:00 PM
-
Just finished watching Deadline Discovery on the Discovery Channel... They were talking about new high tech toys that will be available in all branches of the US military by 2008.
X-32 and X-35 joint strike fighters are competing for a 200 billion dollar (3-6 thousand aircraft to be produced) deal w/ the US and UK. UK variant will be used for carrier ops. Mix the greatest aspects of an AV-8 Harrier, F/A-18 Hornet, F-22 Raptor, and other good things and you'll get this new stealty fighter..
I'm just amazed at this technology! I'm sure yall know something about this already, but it caught my eye and I felt like sharing it with wonderful Knight[\b] community here at AH... I guess[\i] could allow Rooks and Bish to read.. but you better be gratefull!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) LoL
------------------
-=///Octavius\\\=-
VMF-323 "Death Rattlers"
MAG-33
Maz203@aol.com
[This message has been edited by Octavius (edited 02-21-2001).]
-
These newer designs scare me. They have so much technology and cost so much and generally don't seem like something that can withstand the hardships of day-to-day service in an actual war.
Massive amounts of tech = "hangar queen"
The best approach to fighting equipment? K.I.S.S.
J_A_B
-
My thoughts exactly JAB. They also mentioned unmanned multi-task fighters. They give them autonomous control. Send them on their way and they target, kill, return and land, taxi, the whole thing on their own. What happens when our toasters turn on us? Reminds me of Terminator (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Its great that we're capable of creating this technology, but I don't believe we need it.
[This message has been edited by Octavius (edited 02-21-2001).]
-
They also mentioned unmmaned multi-task fighters
That idea scares the toejam outta me.
-
Mostly highly advanced R/C airplanes, right? I mean, they can't put that kind of intel into an airplane! But, we certainly have enough Nintendo pilots around to fly the darn things.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B:
These newer designs scare me. They have so much technology and cost so much and generally don't seem like something that can withstand the hardships of day-to-day service in an actual war.
The best approach to fighting equipment? K.I.S.S.
J_A_B
The K.I.S.S. principle really is being applied in a round-a-bout way if you think about it. The higher OUR technology the less the hardships in that real war (simple approach idea). If the bad guyz can't get off the ground, and can't utilize thier technology effectively because it's countered by our technology, then you have more of a cakewalk than a war.
Swamp
-
You never know, flying online flight sims might lead to a new job offer.
Dateline: Washington
August 12th, 2008
"In response to the recent Declaration of War issued by the Republic of China, Pentagon officials have confirmed that they have engaged in a mass drafting of Aces High and Warbirds pilots. These pilots will be responsible for flying the remote controlled X-42 attack fighter. Unofficial sources have stated that the ROC has now been renamed 'Knitland'".
-
Don't forget how the JSF program is supposed to work. It's not a "one plane does all" concept.
The idea is that most of the major components for each type of aircraft will be interchangeable. There are still 4 or 5 variants that will be made.
1. CV capable
2. STOL capable
3. ground pounder
4. intercepter
Basically it means that if an American plane needs something, they can go to the british wharehouse and get it. Guns, ammo, external ords, radar, radio, engines (model dependant), certain airframe components, etc.
And they are being designed to take the beatings and be highly repairable in the field. I still wouldn't want to come up against the Russian backflipper though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
"Wing up, Get kills, Be happy"
Midnight
13th TAS
midnight@13thtas.com
"I see you have made your decision. Now let's see you enforce it." -Brandon Lee (The Crow)
-
The Russians have mastered the K.I.S.S principle with their planes. Sure, American made planes have shot a lot of them down, but we gotta look at the specific situation. Gulf war for instance was pretty much a turkey shoot with regards to a2a.
Imagine if they added some better avionics to the Su-37.
Yum.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!
-
3-6 thousand planes? whose bellybutton did they pull that number out of? No one's built planes for the military in that quantity since WWII.
(edit, OK, maybe the most successful combat jet in the world has, do you know which that is? hint, don't go by kills) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Imagine if they delivered any Su-37's to an armed force of any country anywhere LOL! It's at a comparable stage of development to the F-22, but it's basically a 30 year old design.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-22-2001).]
-
Originally posted by SwampRat:
The K.I.S.S. principle really is being applied in a round-a-bout way if you think about it. The higher OUR technology the less the hardships in that real war (simple approach idea). If the bad guyz can't get off the ground, and can't utilize thier technology effectively because it's countered by our technology, then you have more of a cakewalk than a war.
Swamp
Optimism. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) I most certainly hope it all works like that. Of course the problem arises when the bad guys technology is better or yours doesn't work as planed. I just hope the next enemy is like Iraq and not someone who surprises use with their new goodies or just flat overwhelms us with the number of older but capable weapons in the hands of well trained troops. We ran into that a couple times in the past. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Newly developed autonomous attack vehicles are a going to be a big thing. I know some people in the industry that are working on some things that are real scary. Think of an attack aircraft that is able to distinguish targets via synthetic aperture radar signals. Give it a kill box of 100sq miles and tell it to kill anything it finds moving in the kill box that matches a radar signature in its database. Sort of like a cruise missile that thinks for itself. It loiters over the target area and waits for a target to appear then ether dispenses ordnance or goes terminal. Ether way build them cheap and launch thousands of them and stay the hell out of the kill boxes.
------------------
"Little boy blue....cause he needed the money".....owwwww
-
Actually, the JSF costs are lower then the current F-16 and the F-18. The way they are using the sensors in those aircraft is remarkable as well. The helmet mounted display of the boeing JSF (And most likely Lockheeds submission as well), allows the pilot to track targets anywhere (Well as far as he can turn his head! Of course the cursors still display the direction of the target/threat. 'Computer sim padlock' for real fighters (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ).
As for the unmanned combat air vehicles, Boeing rolled out it's design (The X-45) late last year under a DARPA contract and Lockheed has a classified (go figure) UCAV for the Air Force, and Northrop Grumman unveiled their UCAV demonstrator design for the Navy last week (This weeks Aviation Week & Space Technology). According to what I have read, many of these designs won't be flown by a man in the loop, but rather 'monitored' during their missions. This allows one controller to control many vehicles at once. They also stated that when one of these has acquired the target, they may require authorization to launch from the mission controller. However, they can obviously be programmed to launch weapons w/o authorization. Of course, the cost savings these vehicles would allow is enormous, since they don't have all the life support/MMI equipment and they don't have to be built to be flown hundreds or thousands of hours a year, and the training costs for the personnal and equipment support is greatly reduced as well. I think Boeing stated that their design would be stressed to last about six to twelve missions. I think the reason for the low number is:
a) To keep costs down.
b) They probably don't expect them to last long in the extremely high threat environment they would fly in.
Did they have anything in that show about the micro air vehicles they are working on? These are flying vehicles about the size of insects. Reportedly, one of the missions they are looking at for those, would be to have many of them 'parked' in the fields/grass at the end of enemy airfields and have them take off in clouds when enemy aircraft take off so they are ingested by the planes engines. So, you think we will see that in the next Bond or Clancy movie? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Sundog
VMF-111 Devildogs (http://www.devildogs.com)
'Criticism is always easier than craftmanship.'
-
If...I...could...only...show. ..you.... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Ahh, but I can give you this information:
X-33
Will fly up to Mach 13-15. Boeing Rocketdyne is providing the Linear Aersospike engine in the demonstator, if successful, a full scale version is coming.
X-37
Only X-vehicle capable of Mach 25. Final assembly of this X vehicle will take place at Boeing with a roll out slated for 2001.
X-40
First flown in 1998, the space maneuver vehicle is an instrumented X-vehicle that supports the flight dynamics of the simliarily shaped X-37. It will undergo drop tests from a CH-47 Chinook Helo soon.
X-43 Hyper-X
Scram-jet vehicle designed to explore Mach 7-10 regions of flight. X-43 is slated to fly by mid-2001.
X-45
Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle will begin testing in mid-2001 to demonstrate autonomous flight and potential of combat missions. Will be able to fly 650 miles and carry 1000 lbs. of weapons.
Source: The Boeing News
-
Ah yes micro air vehicles. I did a little internship for a company that only contracts to the government over last summer. Some of the projects that other full time people where working on were micro air vehicles. the best one i saw was the "dragonfly". It was built for one part of the gov, call em Christans In Action. (use imagination). anyhow this thing had wings made out of cut up coke cans and a little body with all kinds of crap on it. It was the size if a med sized dragonfly and only weighed a few grams. powered by a tine electric motor with a lithium battery, it could fly for only about 2 min. It had a black and white camera that could transmit live shots and audio to a tv. But the coolest thing i saw it do is fly into our confrence room, pull into a hover near the window, and rotate its body 90 degrees so it could land on the wall. there it stuck and transmited full black and white with audio back to its base, about 25 yards away. but the amazing thing is it did it on its own, it was programed to fly, id the target (place above window), hovered and landed on a wall.
I never held more then a basic level secuity clearence, and knew about this. in fact this was never really classified. But if they show this stuff off just imagine what they are hidding. very scarry stuff, when you hear top clearence people talk about things like "listening devices", these little things might be the things they speak of. (Read as: they are alread being used in real world recon).
-
The UK variant will be modified for VSTOL. How they'll do this I haven't a clue! I got some info on it at work the other week (they'll eventually be based where I work when and if they enter service).
Regards
Nexx
-
"unmanned aircrafts over Knitland ???" ... ALAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARM !
-
Replicant, they aren't really VSTOL aircraft. This implies vertical take off. They are really STOVL (Which is pretty much how the Harrier is used anyway). The difference being that the JSF aircraft aren't really optimized (In terms of sizing) for vertical take off.
The Lockheed design (X-35) uses a shaft driven fan (i.e.-a lift fan behind the cockpit which is 'shaft driven' from the main engine in the rear fuselage). The rear nozzle of the X-35 is similar in design to the rear nozzle from the YAK-141 (They actually 'consulted' with YAK on the design of that nozzle). So the the vertical thrust vectors on the X-35 are due to the rear nozzle pointing down and the lift fan behind the cockpit.
The Boeing Design (X-32) has two nozzles with limited vector capabiliy (I think it is like 5 degrees angled forward from the vertical and 15 degrees back..not sure, but you get the idea) and they are obviously near the c.g. to either side in the fuselage (More in the bottom, then the sides). The main flow from the rear nozzle is diverted to those nozzles to transition to vertical flight.
Personally, I think the Boeing design will be more robust (i.e.- you don't have to worry about a transmission failure). However, the Lockheed design will allow STOVL versions to have a 'powered equipment' bay. That could be used to power ECM equipment, and some have even suggested, a Laser Weapon.
Ripsnort! You forgot the:
X-44 MANTA
This is a test plane based on the YF-22 prototype. Picture the YF-22 prototype. Remove all of the flight surfaces and controls (Including mechanical vectored thrust) and picture just the fuselage. Now add a cropped delta wing (Picture the wing planform of the production F-22A without flight control surfaces and 'more of' a delta shape). That's the plane! How do they 'control' it? Through the use of 'fluidic' controls. Its a way of effecting the thrust vector without any external vectoring mechanisms. In fact, that's why the X-36s nozzle has apparently never been seen in a public photograph. It apparently used fluidic controls as part of the YAW control of the vehicle (In conjuction with split ailerons). My guess is they are using either 'bleed' doors, or some sort of 'offset ring' control device (Hard to explain) to control boundary layer in the exhaust nozzle and thereby 'steer' the thrust vector without any external moving 'devices'. This can greatly reduce and help control RADAR Cross Section.
------------------
Sundog
VMF-111 Devildogs (http://www.devildogs.com)
'Criticism is always easier than craftmanship.'
[This message has been edited by Sundog (edited 02-22-2001).]
-
Didn't they try the unamanned concept before and decide that computers were too stupid, that planes had to be able to actually THINK? Yes, I'm sure they did--the F-102 and F-106 were both designed to be able to fly and fight themselves, with the pilot just sort of watching, plus landing the plane. by the end of their service, both were changed to a more "normal" configuration.
Seems like we're re-living the 1950's all over again. Pretty soon they're going to start using unguided nuclear missles and decide guns are pointless.
Oh yeah, and a war-hero General is going to be elected President, and there'll be a minor recession which seems big at the time, and we will have another "police action", and automibile design is gonna become outlandish...
Yep, we're back in the 1950's...mark my words.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B:
Seems like we're re-living the 1950's all over again. Pretty soon they're going to start using unguided nuclear missles and decide guns are pointless.
Oh yeah, and a war-hero General is going to be elected President, and there'll be a minor recession which seems big at the time, and we will have another "police action", and automibile design is gonna become outlandish...
Yep, we're back in the 1950's...mark my words.
J_A_B
Wow! Hehe that is what it seems! Its history repeating.. and on a larger scale, it might be repeating similar to the Roman empire, but thats an entirely different subject. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
-=///Octavius\\\=-
VMF-323 "Death Rattlers"
MAG-33
Maz203@aol.com
-
hey, roman empire?! HAIL OCTAVIUS!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
------------------
-=///Octavius\=-
VMF-323 "Death Rattlers"
MAG-33
Maz203@aol.com
-
Out of interest, are these new toys designed to be hardened against EMP effects?
There you are, the US Air Force in all its glory .. thousands of brand new hypersonic aircraft with 'wish em dead' missiles.
China launches a low-earth orbit warhead and detonates it above the battlefield, and every single electronic circuit gets fried.
Thousands of brand new, stone-dead aircraft with long skinny paperweights hanging off the wings.
And millions of enemy with 1945 era rifles coming over the next ridge!
------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11
-
Jab you are forgetting about that little computer revolution thingy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
My area of research is control systems and trust me there is some SCARY AI out there. Have you ever seen a car drive itself? A robot play air hockey? A team of robots play soccer? In the combat aircraft of the future, the pilot is at best a supervisor heheeh...
As for the rest of your post:
- We might just be having that recession.
- Car design is ALREADY outlandish (SUV wheeled sloths).
- President Powell?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-22-2001).]
-
Jekyll yes there is a lot of effort spent on dealing with EM effects from nukes. Every system in an aircraft will have some specifications dealing with that.
-
"Have you ever seen a car drive itself"
Funny you should ask, because I have.
Pretty cool actually. On highways, it would be great. I don't think it would hold up so well on normal roads though, and would be positively lethal in winter.
Really though, that was a couple of years ago and I'm sure they've worked a lot of the bugs out. How well does the system you've seen perform? It would be great for drunk drivers...and those who share the road with them.
But I still can't get over the idea that we're re-living the 50's, except that maybe some of it will work better this time around (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
J_A_B
-
Think about it, the AI on games as old as Aces of the Pacific used to whip your butt for a while. Now imagine billions of dollars and hundreds of AI programers dumped in developing a battlefield AI.
I believe that high resistance to EMP is a requisite of any battlefield toy.
Yep, here cometh the AI Wars.
-
JAB actually a computer can drive a car in snow a lot better than a human. A human is just noticing the car begin to slide, while the computer has already detected the slide, made an appropriate correction, and is motoring along nicely.
As far as the actual control of the vehicle (if I want to follow a certain path, what steering/power/braking inputs do I make) computers own humans. The only place the human is better is in reading the road and traffic to figure out what that path is. And that gap is narrowing. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-22-2001).]