 |
Aviation Forums
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scottlowther@ix.netcom.co
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hcobb
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:26 am Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
 |
|
On Mar 20, 6:07 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Supersonic? For the money, I hope so.
|
Not the current designs that have been circulated and never for a
flying wing.
Our choices are a subsonic aircraft like the B2 with incredible
endurance or supersonic aircraft like the F-22 that respond quickly,
but have to be gone in a flash.
It's not like we can build swing wing aircraft like the B-1/F-111/F14
any more.
-HJC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scottlowther@ix.netcom.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:37 am Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Mar 20, 7:07 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Very unlikely. The configuration is a subsonic one. X-47-class
performance would be my guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T.L. Davis
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:12 am Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:17:47 -0700 (PDT), "scottlowther (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com"
<scottlowther (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote:
Supersonic? For the money, I hope so.
TL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:57 am Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Mar 20, 9:37 pm, "scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com"
<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The USAF specs on this bomber explicitly call for a subsonic aircraft.
The tradeoffs involved in supersonic capability were examined, and the
added speed was not considered worth it. The plane is essentially a
smaller and stealthier replacement for the B-52 and B-1B, with a
nuclear as well as conventional capability.
Matt Bille
http://mattbille.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:33 am Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Mar 21, 6:57 pm, Matt <MattWri...@AOL.com> wrote:
Its still subsonic, but flies a lot higher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T.L. Davis
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:26:30 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <henry.cobb (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Mar 20, 6:07 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Supersonic? For the money, I hope so.
Not the current designs that have been circulated and never for a
flying wing.
|
I don't agree. I think a delta with a faired in area rule fuse could
do it, ala an updated B-58. Might need V tails similar to the YF-23
for yaw contol, but why not doable?? Please elaborate. Aurora
concepts came very close to a true "flying wing" design.
TL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:25 am Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Mar 21, 8:13 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:26:30 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:07 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Supersonic? For the money, I hope so.
Not the current designs that have been circulated and never for a
flying wing.
I don't agree. I think a delta with a faired in area rule fuse could
do it, ala an updated B-58. Might need V tails similar to the YF-23
for yaw contol, but why not doable?? Please elaborate. Aurora
concepts came very close to a true "flying wing" design.
|
No offense intended but that suggestion is ridiculous.
The B2 is quiet and efficient, if you want supersonic
booms you need to start from that spec. Different air
intakes, engines, airframe materials and stresses.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hcobb
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Mar 22, 2:25 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | No offense intended but that suggestion is ridiculous.
The B2 is quiet and efficient, if you want supersonic
booms you need to start from that spec. Different air
intakes, engines, airframe materials and stresses.
Ken
|
Yeah, it's not like the USAF will ever have a large bomber that
combines supersonic dash with long loiter times.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-1b-specs.htm
825 mph (Mach 1.25) @ 50,000 feet
7,455 miles, unrefueled
Cost: About two F-22s if you exclude development costs.
-HJC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:37 pm Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Mar 22, 7:45 am, hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mar 22, 2:25 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
No offense intended but that suggestion is ridiculous.
The B2 is quiet and efficient, if you want supersonic
booms you need to start from that spec. Different air
intakes, engines, airframe materials and stresses.
Ken
Yeah, it's not like the USAF will ever have a large bomber that
combines supersonic dash with long loiter times.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-1b-specs.htm
825 mph (Mach 1.25) @ 50,000 feet
7,455 miles, unrefueled
|
The B-1 is one excellent machine.
I doubt (IMO) supersonic speed is much of an advantage,
and could be a disadvange, because of heat and noise.
SAC studied XB-70 and B-58 thoughly, and by 1970 had
returned to the B-52 with stand-off missiles, until the B-1,
augmented the bomber fleet in the 80's.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Mar 22, 2:06 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:25:39 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:13 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:26:30 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:07 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Supersonic? For the money, I hope so.
Not the current designs that have been circulated and never for a
flying wing.
I don't agree. I think a delta with a faired in area rule fuse could
do it, ala an updated B-58. Might need V tails similar to the YF-23
for yaw contol, but why not doable?? Please elaborate. Aurora
concepts came very close to a true "flying wing" design.
No offense intended but that suggestion is ridiculous.
The B2 is quiet and efficient, if you want supersonic
booms you need to start from that spec. Different air
intakes, engines, airframe materials and stresses.
Ken
Ridiculous? OK, maybe I'm thinking tactical instead...
F-14 w/swept wings? Seen from a distance, indistinguishable
from a delta.
FB-111? Again, with wings back, looks like a delta.
What's wrong with a stealth supersonic delta?
|
There is no such thing as "supersonic stealth" that I'm
aware of, (though I've read theory, didn't buy it yet).
The acoustic signature from the sonic boom will make
the unit easy to track from the ground, and heating in
the supersonic speeds leaves it vulnerable to infared
tracking and infared missile homing.
The 500-580 mph of the B2 is efficient, cool and quiet,
and very difficult to track.
For fun we wrote a computer sim based on an inbound
steady 500 mph attacking unit, and a user controlled
interceptor with max 2000 mph, all visible (no stealth).
The interception algorithm is tough.
We limited the g's in the interceptors turn rate, so if it
goes too quick it takes a bit of time to swing onto the
targets rear.
In what way is a 550mph B2 vulnerable?
Ken
| Quote: | Boeing proposal had range and payload advantages over the F-35.
Why build just a redesigned B2? Whats the advantage?
|
See above.
Ken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T.L. Davis
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:05 am Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:25:39 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
<dynamics (AT) vianet (DOT) on.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mar 21, 8:13 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:26:30 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:07 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Supersonic? For the money, I hope so.
Not the current designs that have been circulated and never for a
flying wing.
I don't agree. I think a delta with a faired in area rule fuse could
do it, ala an updated B-58. Might need V tails similar to the YF-23
for yaw contol, but why not doable?? Please elaborate. Aurora
concepts came very close to a true "flying wing" design.
No offense intended but that suggestion is ridiculous.
The B2 is quiet and efficient, if you want supersonic
booms you need to start from that spec. Different air
intakes, engines, airframe materials and stresses.
Ken
|
Ridiculous? OK, maybe I'm thinking tactical instead...
F-14 w/swept wings? Seen from a distance, indistinguishable
from a delta.
FB-111? Again, with wings back, looks like a delta.
What's wrong with a stealth supersonic delta? The orignal F-32
Boeing proposal had range and payload advantages over the F-35.
Why build just a redesigned B2? Whats the advantage?
TL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T.L. Davis
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:40:16 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
<dynamics (AT) vianet (DOT) on.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mar 22, 2:06 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:25:39 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:13 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:26:30 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:07 pm, T.L. Davis <tldavis...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Supersonic? For the money, I hope so.
Not the current designs that have been circulated and never for a
flying wing.
I don't agree. I think a delta with a faired in area rule fuse could
do it, ala an updated B-58. Might need V tails similar to the YF-23
for yaw contol, but why not doable?? Please elaborate. Aurora
concepts came very close to a true "flying wing" design.
No offense intended but that suggestion is ridiculous.
The B2 is quiet and efficient, if you want supersonic
booms you need to start from that spec. Different air
intakes, engines, airframe materials and stresses.
Ken
Ridiculous? OK, maybe I'm thinking tactical instead...
F-14 w/swept wings? Seen from a distance, indistinguishable
from a delta.
FB-111? Again, with wings back, looks like a delta.
What's wrong with a stealth supersonic delta?
There is no such thing as "supersonic stealth" that I'm
aware of, (though I've read theory, didn't buy it yet).
The acoustic signature from the sonic boom will make
the unit easy to track from the ground, and heating in
the supersonic speeds leaves it vulnerable to infared
tracking and infared missile homing.
The 500-580 mph of the B2 is efficient, cool and quiet,
and very difficult to track.
For fun we wrote a computer sim based on an inbound
steady 500 mph attacking unit, and a user controlled
interceptor with max 2000 mph, all visible (no stealth).
The interception algorithm is tough.
We limited the g's in the interceptors turn rate, so if it
goes too quick it takes a bit of time to swing onto the
targets rear.
In what way is a 550mph B2 vulnerable?
Ken
Boeing proposal had range and payload advantages over the F-35.
Why build just a redesigned B2? Whats the advantage?
See above.
Ken
|
The advantage is you can move at 2100 mph if you have to. Dash
capability is a nice "gotcha" to have. Assuming that you are
electronically tracked by methods other than radar, there is no
advantage other than low drag and high speed. What is the difference
between approaching by stealth and coming on so fast that you cannot
be intercepted?
Should other means than radar be available, the B-2 is no better than
a B-52.
I don't say this lightly because a B-2 banked over my house on the way
to a flyover at the Fort Worth airshow. Though the plane was visible,
there was no sound (maybe a low frequency white sound). I watched the
aircraft turn and level out. Wing edge on, it was nearly invisible
(conditions were clear). Had I not known it was there and its track,
I would not have seen it. A low thunder-like rumble followed about 2
seconds after it passed my vantage point. Very impressive.
TL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daryl Hunt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: Northrop Next Gen Bomber patented |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| Quote: | On Mar 22, 7:45 am, hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:25 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
No offense intended but that suggestion is ridiculous.
The B2 is quiet and efficient, if you want supersonic
booms you need to start from that spec. Different air
intakes, engines, airframe materials and stresses.
Ken
Yeah, it's not like the USAF will ever have a large bomber that
combines supersonic dash with long loiter times.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-1b-specs.htm
825 mph (Mach 1.25) @ 50,000 feet
7,455 miles, unrefueled
The B-1 is one excellent machine.
I doubt (IMO) supersonic speed is much of an advantage,
and could be a disadvange, because of heat and noise.
SAC studied XB-70 and B-58 thoughly, and by 1970 had
returned to the B-52 with stand-off missiles, until the B-1,
augmented the bomber fleet in the 80's.
Ken
|
Augmented is the operative word. The Buff still holds down the main fort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
