Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Similar Deviations
Lockheed Martin MEDUSA kc-124

since been deployed into theater by the USAF, where its vastly improved performance in “hot and high” environments has come in very handy. Unlike the pending Airbus A400M, however, the C-130J doesn’t solve the sub-survivable 20-ton armored vehicle limit that has stymied multiple US armored vehicle programs from the Stryker IAV to Future Combat Systems. As such, it represents an improvement that fails to address US tactical airlift’s key bottleneck limitation.”

Something called the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACCA) may – or may not – represent a first step toward addressing that issue. It may also represent a US aerospace effort to avoid a looming future in which the Airbus A400M would be the only available tactical transport for survivable armored personnel carriers. With the light transport JCA made up of entirely foreign designs, the 20-ton transport market beginning to crowd, and the heavy-lift C-17 production line headed toward shutdown, the US aerospace industry risks a slip from a 1980-1990s position of market dominance in the military transport space to a position of fighting for its competitive life by 2020.

So where does ACAA fit in? How is it connected to the Composite Affordability Initiative, and the notional Advanced Joint Air Combat System (AJACS) program?

From CAI to ACAA
The AMC-X/ AJACS Program: Intent and Issues
Contracts and Key Events
Additional Readings & Sources

From CAI to ACAA
X-55 ACAA
X-55A tow-out
(click to view full)

The Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACAA) effort was made possible by an 11-year, $152 million Air Force Research Laboratory-led research and development investment called the Composite Affordability Initiative, which began in the mid 1990s. Despite the potential weight and hence performance advantages offered by composites, industry was reluctant to use them in new aircraft due to their perceived risks and costs. Under the CAI, government labs including NASA, worked collaboratively with industry, in order to develop advanced materials and manufacturing technologies. Composites World summed up the results:

“CAI research accelerated the maturation of materials and processes, increased our understanding of structural behavior in bonded joints, encouraged development of new quality assurance methods to ensure bonded joints remain bonded throughout an aircraft’s service life, and – critically important – ultimately gained large integrated and bonded structures the essential buy-off of DoD aircraft certification authorities…. As the use of CAI technology increases, we envision a day when composites become the default material in DoD airframes, exceeding 50 percent by weight of the structure.”

The Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACCA) illustrates why those changes are important.

In its RFP, the US Air Force Research Laboratory set out goals for a STOL aircraft that could fly 400kt (740km/h), pressurized and carrying 3 cargo pallets, 20 troops or 1 light-wheeled vehicle. This is obviously a scaled-down version of the eventual plane the Air force might want, but it does force the contractors to use appropriate designs as they work to address the cost and weight issues associated with “advanced structural design and manufacturing techniques integrated with advanced aerodynamic design.”

According to Flight International, Alenia North America, Lockheed Martin, Piasecki Aircraft and Dick Rutan’s Voyager Aerospace all expressed interest in the RFP. This is hardly surprising, given the manufacturing and design advantages that may accrue to the winning firm. Lockheed Martin won the ACCA contract, which it turned over to its famous “Skunk Works” advanced design & technology group.

The results have validated that belief. The X-55A ACAA was built using large, bonded unitized composite structures featuring low-temperature, out-of-autoclave curing. That’s ahead of even Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, which uses out-of-autoclave curing in some areas but not for large fuselage parts.

The AJACS Program: Intent and Issues
AIR_YC-15_and_F-4.jpg
YC-15 and F-4
(click to view full)

The USA has been here before, however, with the 1980s Advanced Medium STOL Transport competition that produced the Boeing YC-14 and McDonnell Douglas YC-15. Both planes were produced, both made extensive use of new technologies, both met all tests. The program ended up canceled.

ACAA lays the foundation for a second go-round, if the USAF wishes. Airbus’ new A400M medium-heavy transport will make extensive use of composite structures, and so will Embraer’s KC-390 medium tactical transport. If any future American military airlifter expects to offer competitive performance and costs, the ability to use similar technologies effectively will make a big difference to project risk, project timelines, and aircraft performance.

Ultimately, however, the Advanced Joint Air Combat System (AJACS, formerly AMC-X) requirements are likely to be considerably more ambitious than ACAA’s. A 2004 Air Force Magazine piece had this to say:

“Afghanistan and Iraq have underscored the need for a new tactical transport that would fulfill a variety of airlift and special operations roles, Air Force officials reported. The new aircraft – dubbed Advanced Mobility Concept, or AMC-X – would have about the same cargo capacity as a C-130 but be able to fly higher and faster, while operating from 2,000-foot runways. Moreover, the AMC-X would be stealthy.

“We’re talking about … airliner speed,” close to Mach 1, said Col. Marshall K. Sabol, Air Mobility Command’s deputy director of plans and programs. The C-130’s average speed is 345 mph.

AMC also wants an airplane that can fly at the altitudes used by airliners, with greater range and greater survivability, he said. Paramount for the new transport will be its ability to operate at austere locations and carry outsize cargo, said Sabol.

Moreover, the next tactical airlifter will have to be able to operate in blackout conditions at low level, perform paratrooper and equipment airdrop, operate in all weather, and be capable of accomplishing “autoland” – automatic, virtually hands-off landing, guided only by the runway and onboard navigation systems.

Such requirements are “not the future,” said Sabol, adding, “it’s where we operate” today.

AMC is also working with Air Force Research Labs and the Army to make sure that the tactical transport is compatible with the Army’s new Stryker vehicle. The Stryker was designed to be transportable on C-130s, but the vehicle’s weight has continued to grow.”
AIR_X-48B_BWB_Wind_Tunnel.jpg
X-48B in wind tunnel
(click to view full)

According to Jane’s, potential competitors for the AJACS program could include Lockheed Martin’s MACK concept sketched out in response to Special Forces requirements, a modified Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, or a Boeing concept based on the company’s experimental X-48B blended wing body (BWB) design that offers higher lift, higher capacity in a given footprint, and even noise reduction.

Whatever the eventual platform looks like, in order to accommodate a Stryker vehicle in combat condition, as well as currently contemplated US and foreign armored personnel carrier designs with enough armor to be survivable on modern battlefields, a cargo capacity increase of at least 50% over the current C-130J (21.7 tons – 30-35 tons) would almost certainly be required.

One would think this imperative might be a higher priority than cost-turbocharging requirements like stealth and airliner-class cruise speed, but the 2004 Air Force Magazine article seems to suggest that it wasn’t. Those stealth and speed requirements certainly make sense for Special Operations aircraft beyond 2015, as Robert Martinage’s CSBA presentation [pdf] explains. They can add significant purchase and maintenance costs, however, which risks pricing aircraft intended for conventional military operations out of the market. All in exchange for capabilities that are rarely required by regular forces.

C-130J.jpg
C-130J Hercules
(click to view full)

In order for AJACS to emulate the C-130’s success and result in a competitive aircraft on the international market, as opposed to an aircraft that shares the fate of its AMST predecessors, it will indeed need next-generation manufacturing technologies and materials. It will also have to be designed according to Army priorities, rather than Air Force wish lists. The A400M’s focus on those needs, and smart international production arrangements, have booked it almost 200 orders before AJACS even has a notional design. If it can deal with its technological risks, it will be widely successful. If AJACS cannot compete on cost and capacity, countries that intend to transport survivable armored vehicles in their airlifters will have absolutely no option except the A400M. Especially if the larger and more expensive C-17 production line shuts down.

Even if the C-17 remains in production, however, the combination of proliferating choices in the 20-ton airlift market (C-130J, HAL-Irkut MRTA, Embraer 390), plus a practical 30-ton military requirement that must be met at or below the A400M’s $100-120 million cost, will leave large market slices without American coverage if AJACS is not thought through correctly at its earliest stages.

All of this assumes, of course, that AJACS is funded at all, amidst a wave of exploding public entitlements, demographic squeezes, and lower economic performance.

Contracts and Key Events
X-55 ACAA
X-55A ACAA
(click to view full)

At this stage, the Air Force Research Laboratory Air Vehicles Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH is acquiring the design, development, and manufacture of a technology demonstration Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACCA) that features advanced structural design and manufacturing techniques integrated with advanced aerodynamic design. The purpose of this aircraft is to demonstrate the application of structural design and manufacturing technologies that can significantly reduce the structural weight and cost of future military transport type aircraft.

Oct 19/09: USAF officials announce “X-55A” as the ACAA’s new designation.

The X-55A is a technology demonstrator for the design and manufacture of future aircraft using advanced composite materials. The X-55A is a modified Dornier 328J aircraft with the fuselage aft of the crew station and the vertical tail removed and replaced with completely new structural designs made from composites using new out-of-autoclave curing techniques. The vertical tail was designed using tailored stiffness technology. These were joined with an existing Dornier 328J cockpit, wing, engines and horizontal tail. The test platform contains some 600 accelerometers and stress gauges.

The fuselage was built in 2 large half-sections (upper-lower), featuring sandwich construction with MTM-45 skins and Nomex core. These were bonded together with adhesive and ply overlays along the longitudinal seam, rather than the numerous frames, stiffeners and metal fasteners used commonly in traditional aircraft. Compared to the original metallic components, the X-55A’s composite structure uses approximately 300 structural parts, vs. 3,000 metallic parts for the original components; and approximately 4,000 mechanical fasteners compared to 40,000.

Sept 17/09: Phase III of the ACAA program is awarded to Lockheed Martin. This phase will expand the flight envelope, fully characterize the structure, examine the reliability and longevity of the design, and baseline the X-55A as a test-bed for other technologies. a href=”[link]”>Source.

June 2/09: First flight of the ACAA at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, CA. Working with Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works, it was designed in 5 months, then built and flown 20 months after the go-ahead. Barth Shenk, the ACAA program manager with AFRL’s Air Vehicle Directorate, says that it was built at half the estimated cost of a conventional design of the same size.

Test flights on July 13 and August 8 expanded the aircraft’s maneuver envelope, and recorded external aerodynamic flow data. Source.

Oct 17/07: A Lockheed Martin release says that the USAF Research Laboratory (AFRL) has authorized them to proceed to Phase II of the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACCA) Flight Demonstration contract. Lockheed Martin will build and flight-demonstrate an X-Plane type aircraft with emphasis on innovative structural configurations and concepts; its solution involves replacement of the mid/aft fuselage and empennage of a Dornier 328J aircraft with advanced composites within the required 12-month schedule. The Lockheed Martin release adds that AFRL is currently investigating opportunities for Aurora Flight Sciences to collaborate with Lockheed Martin and AFRL in the demonstration of additional technologies and capabilities for future transport structures.

The integration of advanced composites on the ACCA flight demonstrator is intended to reduce the aircraft’s parts count by 80-90%, and dramatically reduce corrosion and fatigue issues, sharply lowering conventional maintenance costs. ACCA will also offer production traceability, allowing its key technologies to be used in a broad spectrum of next generation aircraft. On the flip side, battle damage to composite airframes can be more difficult to repair, depending on the exact composites and design. Frank Mauro, vice president at Lockheed martin’s famous Skunk Works, says:

“With ACCA we are attempting to reinvent the manufacturing paradigm through the strategic use of composite manufacturing technologies…”

April 20/07: Aurora Flight Sciences Corp. in Manassas, VA received a $46.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide for an ACAA flight demonstrator. At this time, $2 million have been obligated (FA8650-07-C-3700).

Aurora currently builds about 1/3 of the airframe for the large, composites-heavy RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV.
AIR_K-X_MACK-type_Concept.gif
not from Lockheed
(click to view larger)

April 20/07: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Fort Worth, TX received a $49.1 million cooperative agreement contract to provide for an ACAA flight demonstrator. At this time, $2 million have been obligated. Solicitations began January 2007, and negotiations were complete April 2007 (FA8650-07-2-3745).

A 2005 Military Aerospace Technology article makes note of the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works’ MACK concept aircraft, proposed for Special Forces insertion, tanker, and gunship uses. It may exert a significant influence on Lockheed Martin’s ACAA/AJACS designs:

“Lockheed Martin Skunk Works has developed the concept of a modular large-body aircraft to undertake the range of roles listed. This aircraft, designated MACK, will be capable in M-X (special forces insertion), A-X (gunship), C-X (transport) and K-X (tanker) roles. Interchangeable modules can be fitted depending on the requirement.

MACK would have a tailless compound delta wing, with roughly the outer third bent upwards. Multi-spectral stealth characteristics would make it capable against both early warning and fire control radars. Its two engines would be installed inside the airframe. They would be high-bypass types, making them quieter and cooler.

The airframe itself would be made primarily of composite material, although existing composites would be employed in order to reduce costs. Like today’s dedicated strike/interdictor aircraft [DID: and all SOCOM fixed-wing aircraft], MACK would be capable of terrain-following and terrain avoidance flight. It would also be fitted with both offensive and defensive self-protection systems. Aircrew would include pilot, co-pilot and navigator. Gross take-off weight would be 230,000 pounds to 240,000 pounds The engines would each provide 63,000 pounds of thrust, and field length with a 22,000 pound payload would be 1,500 feet.”

Crew: 13
Officers: 5 (pilot, copilot, navigator, fire control officer, electronic warfare officer)
Enlisted: 8 (flight engineer, TV operator, infrared detection set operator, loadmaster, four aerial gunners)
Length: 137 ft
Wingspan: 125 ft
Height: 38 ft 6 in
Wing area: 185.5 ft² (162.2 m²)
Loaded weight: 202.00 lb (55,520 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 155,000 lb (69,750 kg)
Powerplant: 4 ×Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 Pitch Thrust vectoring turbofans

Performance
Cruise speed: Mach 0.76 (450 knots, 515 mph, 830 km/h)
Range: 2,420 nmi[155] (2,785 mi, 4,482 km)
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
Max wing loading: 150 lb/ft² (750 kg/m²)
Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277
Takeoff run at MTOW: 7,600 ft (2,316 m)[155]
Landing distance: 3,500 ft (1,060 m)
2004-2011 Defense Industry Daily, LLC in association with Watershed Publishing
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.




Air superiority fighter
Multirole combat aircraft

General characteristics

* Crew: 2 (Pilot and Radar Intercept Officer)
* Length: 72 ft 5 in
* Wingspan: 52 ft 8 in
* Height: 15 ft 11 in
* Wing area: 1000 ft²
* Empty weight: 30,000 lb
* Loaded weight: 60,600 lb
* Max takeoff weight: 65,000 lb
* Powerplant: 2× G Pratt & Whitney YF220 , 65,000 lbf
* Thrust vectoring: ±10° at 40° per second in pitch and yaw

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 8.6 (mph = 6 546.38064 m2 / s2, 2 926.494 m2 / s km/h) at altitude
* Cruise speed: Mach 3.4+ est. (mph = 2 588.10397 m3 / s2) 1 156.986 m2 / s+ km/h) hypercruise at altitude
* Combat radius: 900-520 mi[15] (1448.4096 nmi, 1.448.4096 km)
* Service ceiling: 95,000 ft (28.95600m)
* Wing loading: 70 lb/ft² (456 kg/m²;)

# Secondary Powerplant: 1× General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 afterburning turbofan, >40,000 lbf (178 kN) [in development]
# Lift fan (STOVL): 1× Rolls-Royce LiftSystem driven from either F135 or F136 power plant, 18,000 lbf (80 kN)
# Internal fuel: 35.00 IB

Avionics

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system
BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) electronic warfare system
Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system

Armament

* Guns: 2 × GAU-22/A 25 mm (0.984 in) cannon in internal mounted
* Hardpoints: 4× external pylons on wings with a capacity of 30,000 lb ( internal mounted on Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA)[37],
* Missiles: 12 loud
*Internal: 12 air-to-air missiles, or 16 air-to-air missiles and 20 air-to-ground weapons.
* External: 14 air-to-air missiles, or 4 air-to-ground weapons and 2 air-to-air missiles[40] with combinations for the following missiles:
*2x Rear-defence 10 ronds gided sabo

Air-to-air missiles:
+ AIM-120 AMRAAM
+ AIM 188 ADRAM
+ AIM-132 ASRAAM
+ AIM-9X Sidewinder
o Air-to-ground weapons:
4× AGM-88 HARM
+ AGM-154 JSOW
+ AGM-158 JASSM
# 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder, Python-3 (F-4 Kurnass 2000), IRIS-T (F-4E AUP Hellenic Air Force)
# 4× AIM-7 Sparrow, AAM-3(F-4EJ Kai)
# 4× AIM-120 AMRAAM for F-4F ICE, F-4E AUP (Hellenic Air Force)
# 6× AGM-65 Maverick
# 4× AGM-62 Walleye
# 4× AGM-45 Shrike, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-78 Standard ARM
# 4× GBU-15
# 18× Mk.82, GBU-12
# 5× Mk.84, GBU-10, GBU-14
# 18× CBU-87, CBU-89, CBU-58
Anti-ship missiles:
2× AGM-84 Harpoon or
4× AGM-119 Penguin

AN/APG-81

The AN/APG-81 is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) designed by Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems for the F-35 Lightning II.
The Joint Strike Fighter AN/APG-81 AESA radar is a result of the US government's competition for the world's largest AESA acquisition contract. Westinghouse Electronic Systems (acquired by Northrop Grumman in 1996) and Hughes Aircraft (acquired by Raytheon in 1997) received contracts for the development of the Multifunction Integrated RF System/Multifunction Array (MIRFS/MFA) in February 1996.[1] Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman were selected as the winners of the Joint Strike Fighter competition; The System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract was announced on 26 October 2001.
The AN/APG-81 is a successor radar to the F-22's AN/APG-77. Over 3,000 AN/APG-81 AESA radars are expected to be ordered for the F-35, with production to run beyond 2035, and including large quantities of international orders. As of August 2007, 8 APG-81s have already been produced and delivered. The first three blocks of radar software have been developed, flight tested, and delivered ahead of schedule by the Northrop Grumman Corporation. Capabilities of the AN/APG-81 include the AN/APG-77's air-to-air modes plus advanced air-to-ground modes including high resolution mapping, multiple ground moving target detection and track, combat identification, electronic warfare, and ultra high bandwidth communications. The current F-22 production radar is the APG-77v1, which draws heavily on APG-81 hardware and software for its advanced air-to-ground capabilities.[2]
In August 2005, the APG-81 radar was flown for the first time aboard Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 airborne laboratory. Since then, the radar system has accumulated over 300 flight hours, maturing all five blocks of software. The first radar flight on Lockheed Martin's CATBird avionics test bed aircraft took place in November 2008. Announced on 6/22/10: The radar met and exceeded its performance objectives successfully tracking long-range targets as part of the first mission systems test flights of the F-35 Lightning II BF-4 aircraft.[3]
The AN/APG-81 team won the 2010 David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award for performance against jammers.

The Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP), designated AN/AAQ-33 in U.S. Military Service, provides positive target identification, autonomous tracking, coordinate generation, and precise weapons guidance from extended standoff ranges. The Sniper ATP is used on the F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, B-1 (Rod Pod), UK Harrier GR9,.[1] and Canadian CF-18 Hornet. [2] The Sniper ATP is in service with Norway, Oman, Poland, Singapore, Canada, Belgium, Turkey, Saudi Arabia[3] and the UK MoD.[4][5] In July 2007, Sniper ATP was acquired by Pakistan, making it the tenth country in the world to be in possession of the Sniper pod.[6] The Sniper ATP contains a laser designator and tracker for guiding laser-guided bombs. The pod also features a third-generation FLIR receiver and a CCD television camera. FLIR allows observation and tracking in low light / no light situations, while the CCD camera allows the same functions during day time operations.
A team of Lockheed Martin UK, BAE Systems and SELEX Galileo (formerly Selex S&AS) has successfully demonstrated and flown a Sniper ATP on board a Tornado GR4 combat aircraft.
The U.S. Air Force initial seven-year contract for Sniper ATP has potential value in excess of $843 million. The Sniper ATP has delivered over 125 pods and the U.S. Air Force plans to procure at least 522 Sniper ATPs.
Panther is the export equivalent to the Lockheed Martin Sniper Extended Range (XR) targeting pod.

Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) is a future data waveform to provide secure data-linking technology between stealth aircraft. It began as a method to coordinate between F-35 aircraft (the Joint Strike Fighter), but HQ Air Combat Command wants to expand the capabiltiy to coordinate future USAF strike forces of all AF stealth aircraft, including the B-2, F-22, and unmanned systems. MADL is expected to provide needed throughput, latency, frequency-hopping and anti-jamming capability with phased Array Antenna Assemblies (AAAs) that send and receive tightly directed radio signals.[1]
The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics directed the Air Force and Navy to integrate MADL among the F-22, F-35 and B-2, to one another and to the rest of network.

The FA-70 need not be physically pointing at its target for weapons to be successful. This is possible because of sensors that can track and target a nearby aircraft from any orientation, provide the information to the pilot through his helmet (and therefore visible no matter which way they are looking), and provide the seeker-head of a missile with sufficient information. Recent missile types provide a much greater ability to pursue a target regardless of the launch orientation, called "High Off-Boresight" capability, although the speed and direction in which the munition is launched must physically speaking nonetheless affect the chance of success. Sensors use combined radio frequency and infra red (SAIRST) to continually track nearby aircraft while the pilot's helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) displays and selects targets. The helmet system replaces the display suite-mounted head-up display used in earlier fighters.
The FA-70's systems provide the edge in the "observe, orient, decide, and act" OODA loop; stealth and advanced sensors aid in observation (while being difficult to observe), automated target tracking helps in orientation, sensor fusion simplifies decision making, and the aircraft's controls allow action against targets without having to look away from them.

VSI Helmet-mounted display system

The FA-70 need not be physically pointing at its target for weapons to be successful. This is possible because of sensors that can track and target a nearby aircraft from any orientation, provide the information to the pilot through his helmet (and therefore visible no matter which way they are looking), and provide the seeker-head of a missile with sufficient information. Recent missile types provide a much greater ability to pursue a target regardless of the launch orientation, called "High Off-Boresight" capability, although the speed and direction in which the munition is launched affect the effective range of the weapon. Sensors use combined radio frequency and infra red (SAIRST) to continually track nearby aircraft while the pilot's helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) displays and selects targets. The helmet system replaces the display suite-mounted head-up display used in earlier fighters.
the FA-70's systems provide the edge in the "observe, orient, decide, and act" OODA loop; stealth and advanced sensors aid in observation (while being difficult to observe), automated target tracking helps in orientation, sensor fusion simplifies decision making, and the aircraft's controls allow action against targets without having to look away from them.
The problems with the current Vision Systems International helmet mounted display led Lockheed Martin to issue a draft specification for proposals for an alternative on 1 March 2011.[199] The alternative system will be based on Anvis-9 night vision goggles. It will be supplied by BAE systems.[201] The BAE system does not include all the features of the VSI helmet and is currently intended only for use during the testing program. In 2011, Lockheed granted VSI a contract to fix the vibration, jitter, night-vision and sensor display problems in their helmet mounted display. The improved displays are expected to be delivered in third quarter of 2013
Fly-By-Light

The Fly-By-Light Advanced System Hardware (FLASH) program is developing and demonstrating dual use fly-by-light hardware for flight control systems on military and commercial aircraft. Under the transport aircraft portion of this program, we and our industry teammates are demonstrating two representative fly-by-light systems. These fly-by-light demonstrations include a ground demonstration of a partial primary flight control system and a flight demonstration of an aileron trim control system. This paper describes these and discusses the dual use fly-by-light hardware developed for transport aircraft as well as the associated FLASH program demonstrations.

Adaptive Camouflage

Lightweight optoelectronic systems built around advanced image sensors and display panels have been proposed for making selected objects appear nearly transparent and thus effectively invisible. These systems are denoted "adaptive camouflage" because unlike traditional camouflage, they would generate displays that would change in response to changing scenes and lighting conditions. Fa-70 use 3 Generation based off of snake skin design

Next Generation Jammer

The United States Marine Corps is considering replacing their Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft with F-35s that have stealthy jammer pods attached.[204] On 30 September 2008, the United States Navy outlined the basic requirements of the NGJ and stated that the design must be modular and openThe Navy has selected four companies to submit designs for the Next Generation Jammer.[206] The NGJ will also have cyber attack capabilities where the AESA radar is used to insert tailored data streams into remote systems. the ITT-Boeing design for the NGJ includes six AESA arrays for all around coverage The team has been awarded a $42 million contract to develop their design based on ITT's experience with broadband electronically steerable antenna arrays.[2At the same time contracts were also awarded to Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.

Pratt & Whitney YF220pw-200

Scram-LACE

Scramjet

are mechanically very similar to ramjets. Like a ramjet, they consist of an inlet, a combustor, and a nozzle. The primary difference between ramjets and scramjets is that scramjets do not slow the oncoming airflow to subsonic speeds for combustion, they use supersonic combustion instead. The name "scramjet" comes from "supersonic combusting ramjet." Since scramjets use supersonic combustion they can operate at speeds above Mach 6 where traditional ramjets are too inefficient. Another difference between ramjets and scramjets comes from how each type of engine compresses the oncoming air flow: while the inlet provides most of the compression for ramjets, the high speeds at which scramjets operate allow them to take advantage of the compression generated by shock waves, primarily oblique shocks.[20]
Very few scramjet engines have ever been built and flown. In May 2010 the Boeing X-51 set the endurance record for the longest scramjet burn at over 200 seconds.[21]

Precooled jets / LACE

Intake air is chilled to very low temperatures at inlet in a heat exchanger before passing through a ramjet and/or turbojet and/or rocket engine. Easily tested on ground. Very high thrust/weight ratios are possible (~14) together with good fuel efficiency over a wide range of airspeeds, Mach 0-5.5+; this combination of efficiencies may permit launching to orbit, single stage, or very rapid, very long distance intercontinental travel. Exists only at the lab prototyping stage. Examples include RB545, Reaction Engines SABRE, ATREX. Requires liquid hydrogen fuel which has very low density and requires heavily insulated tankage.

Thrust Vector Control
Thrust Vector Control or Thrust Vectoring is a technology that deflects the mean flow of an engine jet from the centerline in order to transfer some force to the aimed axis. By that imbalance, a momentum is created and used to control the change of attitude of the aircraft. Among other things, thrust vectoring greatly improves maneuverability, even at high angles of attack or low speeds where conventional aerodynamic control surfaces lose all effectiveness. Thrust Vector Control is currently achieved by complex arrays of mechanical actuators capable of modifying the geometry of the nozzle and thus defect the flow. This variable geometry greatly increases weight and maintenance to the engine, and therefore limits the benefits from vectoring the thrust.

Gloved Close-coupled canard

In the close-coupled canard, the foreplane is located just above and forward of the main wing. At high angles of attack the canard surface directs airflow downwards over the wing, reducing turbulence which results in reduced drag and increased lift

my own design done from old hand work
updated


:icondonotuseplz::iconmyartplz:
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

FA-70 panther Weapons load
Weapons Load Outs are mission specific
ordnance aircraft carries may vary ordnance air to are or air to ground loads or mix

Lockheed FA-70 Panther
Air superiority fighter
Multirole combat aircraft

General characteristics

* Crew: 2 (Pilot and Radar Intercept Officer)
* Length: 72 ft 5 in
* Wingspan: 52 ft 8 in
* Height: 15 ft 11 in
* Wing area: 1000 ft²
* Empty weight: 30,000 lb
* Loaded weight: 60,600 lb
* Max takeoff weight: 65,000 lb
* Powerplant: 2× G Pratt & Whitney YF220 , 65,000 lbf

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 8.6 (mph = 6 546.38064 m2 / s2, 2 926.494 m2 / s km/h) at altitude
* Cruise speed: Mach 3.4+ est. (mph = 2 588.10397 m3 / s2) 1 156.986 m2 / s+ km/h) hypercruise at altitude
* Combat radius: 900-520 mi[15] (1448.4096 nmi, 1.448.4096 km)
* Service ceiling: 95,000 ft (28.95600m)
* Wing loading: 70 lb/ft² (456 kg/m²;)

# Secondary Powerplant: 1× General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 afterburning turbofan, >40,000 lbf (178 kN) [in development]
# Lift fan (STOVL): 1× Rolls-Royce LiftSystem driven from either F135 or F136 power plant, 18,000 lbf (80 kN)
# Internal fuel: 35.00 IB

Armament

* Guns: 2 × GAU-22/A 25 mm (0.984 in) cannon in internal mounted
* Hardpoints: 4× external pylons on wings with a capacity of 30,000 lb ( internal mounted on Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA)[37],
* Missiles: 12 loud
*Internal: 12 air-to-air missiles, or 16 air-to-air missiles and 20 air-to-ground weapons.
* External: 14 air-to-air missiles, or 4 air-to-ground weapons and 2 air-to-air missiles[40] with combinations for the following missiles:
*2x Rear-defence 10 ronds gided sabo

Air-to-air missiles:
+ AIM-120 AMRAAM
+ AIM 188 ADRAM
+ AIM-132 ASRAAM
+ AIM-9X Sidewinder
o Air-to-ground weapons:
4× AGM-88 HARM
+ AGM-154 JSOW
+ AGM-158 JASSM
# 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder, Python-3 (F-4 Kurnass 2000), IRIS-T (F-4E AUP Hellenic Air Force)
# 4× AIM-7 Sparrow, AAM-3(F-4EJ Kai)
# 4× AIM-120 AMRAAM for F-4F ICE, F-4E AUP (Hellenic Air Force)
# 6× AGM-65 Maverick
# 4× AGM-62 Walleye
# 4× AGM-45 Shrike, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-78 Standard ARM
# 4× GBU-15
# 18× Mk.82, GBU-12
# 5× Mk.84, GBU-10, GBU-14
# 18× CBU-87, CBU-89, CBU-58
Anti-ship missiles:
2× AGM-84 Harpoon or
4× AGM-119 Penguin

AN/APG-81

The AN/APG-81 is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) designed by Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems for the F-35 Lightning II.
The Joint Strike Fighter AN/APG-81 AESA radar is a result of the US government's competition for the world's largest AESA acquisition contract. Westinghouse Electronic Systems (acquired by Northrop Grumman in 1996) and Hughes Aircraft (acquired by Raytheon in 1997) received contracts for the development of the Multifunction Integrated RF System/Multifunction Array (MIRFS/MFA) in February 1996.[1] Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman were selected as the winners of the Joint Strike Fighter competition; The System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract was announced on 26 October 2001.
The AN/APG-81 is a successor radar to the F-22's AN/APG-77. Over 3,000 AN/APG-81 AESA radars are expected to be ordered for the F-35, with production to run beyond 2035, and including large quantities of international orders. As of August 2007, 8 APG-81s have already been produced and delivered. The first three blocks of radar software have been developed, flight tested, and delivered ahead of schedule by the Northrop Grumman Corporation. Capabilities of the AN/APG-81 include the AN/APG-77's air-to-air modes plus advanced air-to-ground modes including high resolution mapping, multiple ground moving target detection and track, combat identification, electronic warfare, and ultra high bandwidth communications. The current F-22 production radar is the APG-77v1, which draws heavily on APG-81 hardware and software for its advanced air-to-ground capabilities.[2]
In August 2005, the APG-81 radar was flown for the first time aboard Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 airborne laboratory. Since then, the radar system has accumulated over 300 flight hours, maturing all five blocks of software. The first radar flight on Lockheed Martin's CATBird avionics test bed aircraft took place in November 2008. Announced on 6/22/10: The radar met and exceeded its performance objectives successfully tracking long-range targets as part of the first mission systems test flights of the F-35 Lightning II BF-4 aircraft.[3]
The AN/APG-81 team won the 2010 David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award for performance against jammers.

The Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP), designated AN/AAQ-33 in U.S. Military Service, provides positive target identification, autonomous tracking, coordinate generation, and precise weapons guidance from extended standoff ranges. The Sniper ATP is used on the F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, B-1 (Rod Pod), UK Harrier GR9,.[1] and Canadian CF-18 Hornet. [2] The Sniper ATP is in service with Norway, Oman, Poland, Singapore, Canada, Belgium, Turkey, Saudi Arabia[3] and the UK MoD.[4][5] In July 2007, Sniper ATP was acquired by Pakistan, making it the tenth country in the world to be in possession of the Sniper pod.[6] The Sniper ATP contains a laser designator and tracker for guiding laser-guided bombs. The pod also features a third-generation FLIR receiver and a CCD television camera. FLIR allows observation and tracking in low light / no light situations, while the CCD camera allows the same functions during day time operations.
A team of Lockheed Martin UK, BAE Systems and SELEX Galileo (formerly Selex S&AS) has successfully demonstrated and flown a Sniper ATP on board a Tornado GR4 combat aircraft.
The U.S. Air Force initial seven-year contract for Sniper ATP has potential value in excess of $843 million. The Sniper ATP has delivered over 125 pods and the U.S. Air Force plans to procure at least 522 Sniper ATPs.
PANTERA is the export equivalent to the Lockheed Martin Sniper Extended Range (XR) targeting pod.

Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) is a future data waveform to provide secure data-linking technology between stealth aircraft. It began as a method to coordinate between F-35 aircraft (the Joint Strike Fighter), but HQ Air Combat Command wants to expand the capabiltiy to coordinate future USAF strike forces of all AF stealth aircraft, including the B-2, F-22, and unmanned systems. MADL is expected to provide needed throughput, latency, frequency-hopping and anti-jamming capability with phased Array Antenna Assemblies (AAAs) that send and receive tightly directed radio signals.[1]
The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics directed the Air Force and Navy to integrate MADL among the F-22, F-35 and B-2, to one another and to the rest of network.

The FA-70 need not be physically pointing at its target for weapons to be successful. This is possible because of sensors that can track and target a nearby aircraft from any orientation, provide the information to the pilot through his helmet (and therefore visible no matter which way they are looking), and provide the seeker-head of a missile with sufficient information. Recent missile types provide a much greater ability to pursue a target regardless of the launch orientation, called "High Off-Boresight" capability, although the speed and direction in which the munition is launched must physically speaking nonetheless affect the chance of success. Sensors use combined radio frequency and infra red (SAIRST) to continually track nearby aircraft while the pilot's helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) displays and selects targets. The helmet system replaces the display suite-mounted head-up display used in earlier fighters.
The FA-70's systems provide the edge in the "observe, orient, decide, and act" OODA loop; stealth and advanced sensors aid in observation (while being difficult to observe), automated target tracking helps in orientation, sensor fusion simplifies decision making, and the aircraft's controls allow action against targets without having to look away from them.

Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

McDonnell Douglas TR-3B TRINITY

The TR-3B is what many claim to be, a nuclear powered flying triangle, capable of phenomenal speeds. Some even claim that it was made using alien technology... reverse engineered from alleged captured space-craft.


This mysterious black triangle has reportedly been sighted at various locations all over the world.
The TR-3B is commonly presumed to be the product of the "Aurora" black project. According to various sources, it is the most classified of top secret projects.


Edgar Fouche, an avionics expert, who claims to have worked at area 51 and knows others who have seen the TR-3B, has revealed some of the TR-3B 's technology. From his presentation we know the following: It is "alien looking", pitch black, triangular, seen at the Groom Lake facility, settles vertically on the tarmac, it is massive and measures about 600 ft across, radiates a corona of silver-blue light, the first US vehicle to use "quasi crytals" in its outer skin, it is funded by the NRA NSA and CIA, on radar the TR-3B can appear to be almost anything from a bird to a small plane, it is nuclear powered, has a Magnetic Field Disruptor which is a circular accelerator, the circular accelerator is mercury based, rotates at 60,000 rpms, pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres and supercooled to 150 degrees kelvin, this results in the TR-3B becoming 89% lighter and also reducing G forces by the same amount.


Here is an account of what I saw: Two gigantic "plasma" circles, one fluorescent green circle, and another white cricle, which seemed to collide (somehow it seemed as if one circle went infront of the other one in a downwards direction) in the sky, and that was then followed by an enormous flash(may have been 2 flashes) which covered the entire horizon, no sound at all. I witnessed this event one night, about 1.30am, circa 1999-2000, when the US navy was located in the Adriatic sea, at the time of the Serbia-Kosovo conflict. I was standing on my terrace in Split, Croatia, it was a warm night and I was looking out over the Adriatic sea.


My guess would be that the light source of the round "plasma" circles was located somewhere in the central Adriatic, south-west of the island of Vis, between Croatia and Italy. I had no idea what the lights were, I quickly woke up my brother in the other room, and I told him of what I had seen, we then waited and watched but there wasn't a repeat event.


I had no idea as to what it could have been, until recently, when I came across footage of a TR-3B which was apparently filmed over Paris: The black triangle slowly comes into view, stops mid-air and then tilts as if to allow the pilots to have a ground view, then a white circular light radiates from its center, causing a perfect white circle and subsequent flash (exactly the same as what I had seen)! This footage which some viewers claim to be a hoax, seems very convincing to me: I actually think its real. What really convinces me is the round light... it appears 2 dimensional, not 3 dimensional,(just like a spherical white street lamp, which seems 2 dimensional from a distance, but is actually 3 dimensional) and the circle isn't a glow with fuzzy edges, it is a circle with a defined edge, as if the light source is contained. And that's exactly what I saw that night.


Roll over the image below to see my flash version of what I saw,
it is fairly accurate, but the flash at the end was bright white and flashed horizontally.
It is interesting to note that an enormous triangle UFO was sighted by many people on the island of Pag, Croatia, in 1967. Various police patrol radio conversation transcripts bare testimony to the event. A drawing was put together by people who saw the object, and it looks alot like the TR-3B. The object apparently made it's way over the island, slowly and at low altitude.

Some people claim that the "black triangle" TR-3B is a NWO police enforcement vehicle, and that it's true purpose is yet to be made public, through some future course of events. It is also intresting to note that there were a number of sightings of the TR-3B over Belgium... Belgium is apparently the center of the worlds banking elite and NATO. Some people also claim that TR-3Bs are often seen travelling in pairs... and often seen over war-zones.

Anti gravity technology advances began gathering pace, coincideing with the infamous confiscation of Nikola Tesla's personal research and theory notes. Soon after, anything to do with antigravity, research etc... became top secret, confidential, and it is anyones guess as to what they had discovered...

TR-3A

Other sources suggest the existence of a subsonic stealthy recconnaissance aircraft, which is reportedly designated the TR-3A, although its actual designation and mission remain unclear.<1> Recently, it has been posited that the aircraft was designed to collect and transmit near-real-time digital photo information directly to F-117As for immediate tactical applications. The TR-3A reportedly has a range of more than 5,000 kilometers and the ability to operate at both low and high altitudes.<2>

The aircraft has been reportedly observed flying with KC-135 aerial tankers, F- 117 stealth fighters and T-38 aircraft. Its engines are said to run more quietly than the muffled General Electric F-404 powerplants on the Stealth fighter, which may explain how an aircraft of this type could elude detection for some time. Because of their vantage point, ground observations were unable to determine whether any vertical control surfaces jut from the aircraft's back.<3>

The TR-3A, if it exists, may have a slightly larger planform, possibly up to 42 feet long with a 60-65 foot wingspan. It is suggested that:<4>

"About 25-30 of the special reconnaissance aircraft -- designated the TR-3A 'Black Manta' -- could be placed in service eventually, based at Holloman AFB, NM, and Tonapah, Nev. Initial TR-3As are collected with F-117As, although housed separately in larger hangars. Several TR-3As are believed to have been deployed temporarily to Alaska, Britain, Panama and Okinawa. More recently, they are believed to have supported F-117A operations in the Persian Gulf war."

During Operation Desert Storm, the TR-3A's secret identity could have been protected by limiting it to F-117A support.<5> At one point, for instance, Saudi Arabian air force Northrop RF-5s were requested to augment USAF RF-4C operations. One could thus infer that TR-3A data were not distributed widely for use by other than F-117As.<6>
The Public Record

Apart from press reports, there is essentially no open-source information supporting the existence of such an aircraft. Indeed, what evidence does exist would tend to support the contrary proposition, that there is no such program.

During the debate in 1989 over the cancellation of the SR-71, General Michael Dugan, then serving as commander of US Air Forces in Europe, suggested that a new stealthy high-altitude, low-speed aircraft, possibly unpiloted, might take up some of the slack created by the termination of the SR-71.<7>
TR-3A
<8>

Another Air Force source suggested that:<9>

"There might be some thoughts about using low-observable platforms for that mission, but we are not doing that right now."

During 1991 Lockheed made a major effort to convince the Congress to support a billion dollar program to build an additional 24 F-117A aircraft, and to purchase equipment that would enable the F-117A to perform reconnaissance missions.<10> The aircraft would be modified to carry the ATARS camera system in one weapons bay, and a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) in the aircraft's other weapons bay. This palletized installation would permit the aircraft to be converted back to the attack configuration in about four hours.

Although the proposal was endorsed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, it was fiercely opposed by the Air Force, which ultimately prevailed in eliminating funding for the project.

The operational characteristics of the proposed reconnaissance version of the F- 117 are virtually identical to those that have been suggested for the TR-3A. Unavoidably, this episode raises questions about the plausibility of the existence of the TR-3A.

It is very difficult to understand how Lockheed could engage in a very public controversy involving the Air Force, and Sam Nunn, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, regarding production of a reconnaissance version of the F- 117A, if the company were already involved in the production of a virtually identical aircraft, the TR-3A.

While it might be imagined that perhaps this episode might be explained by a decision by the Air Force to cancel the TR-3A, and that Lockheed was hoping to restart the F-117A production line in compensation, there is no evidence to support such an interpretation. And such an assumption would run counter to the assertion that the TR-3A had already achieved operational status by the time of Desert Storm.

Confirming the earlier reports, during the course of this episode one Air Force source noted that:<11>

"They tried to sell this idea to the Air Force back in 1987. The service wasn't looking for a stealthy reconnaissance aircraft back then and it isn't looking for one now."

Based on this record, the existence of the TR-3A must be regarded as suspect, unless one is prepared to accept the proposition that this entire episode, involving a large number of senior government and corporate officials, was merely part of an elaborate cover and deception operation, intended to obscure the existence of the TR-3A.
Budget and Financial Data

The assertion that mystery aircraft like the TR-3A exist implies that some item in the Defense budget can be arguably associated with the program. A not- implausible accounting can be made that suggests an identifiable source of funding that may be attributed to the TR-3A stealth aircraft program. The existence of this budget item significantly bolsters the case for the existence of this program.

Prior to 1989, much of the funding for the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber was contained in an Air Force Aircraft Procurement line item designated Other Production Charges. This line item was aggregated in a budget activity designated Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities, which included such items as Common Ground Equipment, for which roughly half a billion dollars was budgeted in the mid-1980s, as well as other items such as War Consumable, and Industrial Responsiveness.

The comparable Navy budget activity also provided roughly half a billion dollars for Common Ground Equipment during this period. But it is interesting to note that while the Navy allocated approximately $50 million for Other Production Charges (indicative that there is indeed something that actually consists of Other Production Charges, whatever such a miscellaneous category might encompass), the Air Force allocation for Other Production Charges had peaked at over $3.5 billion by 1987. This mystery was solved with the FY 1989 budget, which for the first time provided unclassified budget figures for the B-2. The Other Production Charges line dropped nearly $2 billion from the previous year.
Table 1
Stealth Aircraft Budget

Actual Actual Estimated
FISCAL B-2 B-2 B-2 Other
YEAR Procurement Advanced Production
Procurement Charges

1980 669
1981 50 801
1982 410 1,046
1983 820 988
1984 1200 1,413
1985 2100 1,877
1986 2400 1,941
1987 3200 3,514
1988 0 0 3600 2,977
1989 2,484 313 1,075
1990 1,638 425 563
1991 2,054 295 460
1992 2,456 455 547
1993 3,145 463 686





Table 2
B-2 Annual Cost Estimates
Then-year dollars (millions)

C3I Paine Nisbet Shapiro AVERAGE
Report Webber


R&D TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
FY
1981 50 50
1982 410 410
1983 850 1,110 701 624 820
1984 1,335 1,325 1,120 1,060 1200
1985 2,610 2,000 2,020 1,764 2100
1986 2,215 2,405 2,500 2,425 2400
1987 2,970 4,150 2,800 3,000 3200
1988 2,935 4,760 3,500 3,300 3600



* Dennis begins with the Air Force's figure of $36.6 billion in FY81 dollars, applies DOD inflation factors, and uses the accepted spendout rate formula for Air Force aircraft to arrive at these numbers for ATB procurement. Table taken from Congressional Research Service report on ATB, 4 November 1987.

Shapiro and Nisbet from Armed Forces Journal International/October 1987 P.26

But the solution of this mystery revealed an enigma -- even without the Stealth Bomber, Other Production Charges received over $1 billion in 1989, and about half a billion each year thereafter. That the remaining activity in this account covers sensitive activities was confirmed by the House Appropriations Committee in 1992, when it noted that the explanation of its $118 million reduction from the $686 million request was itself classified.<12>

A careful review of the Air Force budget fails to disclose any other program of comparable magnitude which could account for this level of expenditure. All other major Air Force programs, such as the Advanced Tactical Fighter, MILSTAR, and the Advanced Cruise Missile, have discreet and identifiable line items that account for their budgets. While the Other Production Charges line item probably included funding for the F-117A program in the early 1980s, more recent activity under that program is inconsistent with a half-billion dollar annual procurement expenditure.

The recent funding level of the Other Production Charges line item is strongly suggestive of a continuing program to procure additional stealth aircraft, and is consistent with published accounts of the TR-3A program.

This connection is further strengthened by the similarity in magnitude between the funding level of Other Production Charges, and the cash flow stream and employment at Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Group.

Like Al Capone, black aircraft may be uncovered not by sightings or hard testimony, but by an audit trail. If more money is flowing into a particular company's coffers than can be explained by the amount of aircraft or other hardware being produced, one may infer that some project is being financed that the public is not privy to. As early as 1988, for example, financial analysts printed sales estimates for Lockheed's Aeronautical Systems Group that far exceed any income explained by the firm's known programs. According to one analysis:<13>

"... Bernstein & Co. provided year-by-year Lockheed revenues for 'stealth programs' (plural) that showed increases from $563-million in 1982 to $1.126 billion in 1988, leveling off at $752-million annually in 1990 through 1992."

Another analysis noted that Lockheed's:<14>

"... Aeronautical Systems Group, based in Burbank, Calif., will receive more than $1.1 billion in 1988 government funding that cannot be attributed to any known program... Also, there are more cars in the division's parking lot than can be accounted for by employees of known programs, indicating the possible existence of a new and secret project."

Lockheed's Advanced Development unit is believed to have about 4,000 employees on its payroll, even though TR-1 and F-117A production and YF-22A prototype construction have been completed.<15> What are all these people working on?

While the production of the F-117A stealth attack aircraft has been completed, it was reported that up to a billion dollars a year is still being consumed by Lockheed Systems Co, at Burbank, CA.<16>

A study of this question by Kemper Securities analyst Lawrence Harris noted that Lockheed's revenues from classified aircraft programs was approximately $400 million in 1991:<17>

"Our analysis of Lockheed Skunk Works (Advanced Development Co.) sales suggests that despite the completion of the production portion of the F-117A and TR-1 programs, Skunk Works revenues have remained fairly robust...

Lockheed officials deny these reports, however, and offer a not-implausible explanation for the financial discrepancies. Ben Rich, President of Lockheed Advanced Development Projects Company (the Skunk Works), observed:<18>

"I have heard and read about Aurora, and I do not know what Aurora is. And it is not what we are doing in the Skunk Works. There are a whole bunch of programs out there, lots of them are sensor programs. And that is where we are applying our expertise."

Despite these denials, it is intriguing to note that the roughly half-billion dollars of unexplained Lockheed revenue neatly matches the half-billion dollars of unexplained expenditure in Other Production Charges.
Observer Reports
It is unclear whether there are any observer reports associated with the TR-3A.
Interpretation

It is suggested that the TR-3A aircraft evolved from a number of 1970s era classified programs aimed at developing both a deep-interdiction strike fighter and a companion vehicle to gather target location data.<19> It appears that a plethora of black programs based on stealth techniques were recommended to the services and intelligence agencies between 1976 and 1983.<20> These included:<21>

"...the Air to Surface Technology Evaluation and Integration (ASTEI) program; created to develop concepts for an advanced deep interdiction fighter.... the Covert Survivable In-weather Reconnaissance/Strike (CSIRS) program, which was to yield two separate stealth aircraft designs.... A THAP demonstrator, which made its first flight from the secluded Groom Lake, Nev., facility in 1981. The company reportedly received a follow-on Air Force contract in 1982 to build what was to become the TR-3A, based on the THAP concept."

The single-pilot Tactical High Altitude Penetrator (THAP) design concept was a spanloader airframe design approximately 38 feet long. THAP's wingspan was 56 ft and it stood approximately 14 ft. high and had a maximum takeoff weight of 55,000 to 60,000 pounds.<22> The original THAP design reportedly relied heavily on radar-absorbing material (RAM) -- as well as blended, curved surfaces -- to reduce its radar cross section. This would contrast with the faceted surfaces of the F-117A and would probably result in a heavier aircraft than today's stealth fighter. The long-range reconnaissance mission, however, is more forgiving of extra weight than the combat mission.<23>

Another potential explanation for the triangles reportedly speeding about over the western United States is that these craft are really "proof-of-concept vehicles for the Navy's now canceled A-12 attack plane, an older technology demonstrator for the B-2 or a not-off experimental prototype."<24> Some speculate that an entire "classified fleet" of these large-winged concept demonstrators exist."<25>

The existence of a few such unique technology demonstrators is more readily reconciled with the existing evidence than would the existence of a fleet of TR- 3B aircraft. It would readily explain some of the reported sightings of unusual aircraft.

It has been suggested that the TR-3B was used in conjunction with the F-117A during Desert Storm. But this is difficult to reconcile with the nature of the targets attacked by the F-117A, which were fixed targets, such as command posts and air defense stations. These targets were carefully studied and selected during the months prior to the initiation of the air campaign. Thus it is difficult to understand precisely what function the TR-3B would have been performing to assist the F-117A, which certainly had no need for additional target acquisition support. In the absence of a more explicit suggestion as to the precise relationship between the roles of the TR-3A and the F-117A, the existence of a fleet of operational, battle-tested TR-3As must be regarded as suspect.
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

Lockheed FA-33N Timber Wolf

Multirole jet fighter

General characteristics
• Crew: 1
• Length: 69 ft 2 in)
• Wingspan: 50 ft 9 in to 54 ft 9 in)
• Height: 15ft
• Wing area: 81.87
• Empty weight: 14,375 kg
• Loaded weight: 20,000 kg
• Max. takeoff weight: 30,000 kg
• Powerplant: 2× G Pratt & Whitney YF225, 65,000

Performance

• * Maximum speed: Mach 6.4
• * Cruise speed: Mach 3.4+ est
• * Combat radius: 600-520 mi
• * Service ceiling: 95,000 ft (28.95600m)
• * Wing loading: 70 lb/ft² (456 kg/m²;)

Guns: 2 × General Dynamics GAU-22/A Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 4-barreled gatling cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[N 12][157]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[157][162] and 2 internal bays with 2 pylons each[162] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)[124] and provisions to carry combinations of:
Missiles: ** Air-to-air missiles:
AIM-120 AMRAAM
AIM-9X Sidewinder
IRIS-T
MBDA Meteor (Pending further funding)[343]
JDRADM (after 2020)[344]
Air-to-surface missiles:
AGM-154 JSOW
AGM-158 JASSM[163]
Brimstone missile
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
SOM
Anti-ship missiles:
JSM
Bombs: ***Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs
Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
JDAM-series
B61 nuclear bomb[345]

Avionics

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system
BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) electronic warfare system
Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system


AN/APG-81

The AN/APG-81 is an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) designed by Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems for the F-35 Lightning II.
The Joint Strike Fighter AN/APG-81 AESA radar is a result of the US government's competition for the world's largest AESA acquisition contract. Westinghouse Electronic Systems (acquired by Northrop Grumman in 1996) and Hughes Aircraft (acquired by Raytheon in 1997) received contracts for the development of the Multifunction Integrated RF System/Multifunction Array (MIRFS/MFA) in February 1996.[1] Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman were selected as the winners of the Joint Strike Fighter competition; The System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract was announced on 26 October 2001.
The AN/APG-81 is a successor radar to the F-22's AN/APG-77. Over 3,000 AN/APG-81 AESA radars are expected to be ordered for the F-35, with production to run beyond 2035, and including large quantities of international orders. As of August 2007, 8 APG-81s have already been produced and delivered. The first three blocks of radar software have been developed, flight tested, and delivered ahead of schedule by the Northrop Grumman Corporation. Capabilities of the AN/APG-81 include the AN/APG-77's air-to-air modes plus advanced air-to-ground modes including high resolution mapping, multiple ground moving target detection and track, combat identification, electronic warfare, and ultra high bandwidth communications. The current F-22 production radar is the APG-77v1, which draws heavily on APG-81 hardware and software for its advanced air-to-ground capabilities.[2]
In August 2005, the APG-81 radar was flown for the first time aboard Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 airborne laboratory. Since then, the radar system has accumulated over 300 flight hours, maturing all five blocks of software. The first radar flight on Lockheed Martin's CATBird avionics test bed aircraft took place in November 2008. Announced on 6/22/10: The radar met and exceeded its performance objectives successfully tracking long-range targets as part of the first mission systems test flights of the F-35 Lightning II BF-4 aircraft.[3]
The AN/APG-81 team won the 2010 David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award for performance against jammers.

The Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP), designated AN/AAQ-33 in U.S. Military Service, provides positive target identification, autonomous tracking, coordinate generation, and precise weapons guidance from extended standoff ranges. The Sniper ATP is used on the F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, B-1 (Rod Pod), UK Harrier GR9,.[1] and Canadian CF-18 Hornet. [2] The Sniper ATP is in service with Norway, Oman, Poland, Singapore, Canada, Belgium, Turkey, Saudi Arabia[3] and the UK MoD.[4][5] In July 2007, Sniper ATP was acquired by Pakistan, making it the tenth country in the world to be in possession of the Sniper pod.[6] The Sniper ATP contains a laser designator and tracker for guiding laser-guided bombs. The pod also features a third-generation FLIR receiver and a CCD television camera. FLIR allows observation and tracking in low light / no light situations, while the CCD camera allows the same functions during day time operations.
A team of Lockheed Martin UK, BAE Systems and SELEX Galileo (formerly Selex S&AS) has successfully demonstrated and flown a Sniper ATP on board a Tornado GR4 combat aircraft.
The U.S. Air Force initial seven-year contract for Sniper ATP has potential value in excess of $843 million. The Sniper ATP has delivered over 125 pods and the U.S. Air Force plans to procure at least 522 Sniper ATPs.
Panther is the export equivalent to the Lockheed Martin Sniper Extended Range (XR) targeting pod.

Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) is a future data waveform to provide secure data-linking technology between stealth aircraft. It began as a method to coordinate between F-35 aircraft (the Joint Strike Fighter), but HQ Air Combat Command wants to expand the capabiltiy to coordinate future USAF strike forces of all AF stealth aircraft, including the B-2, F-22, and unmanned systems. MADL is expected to provide needed throughput, latency, frequency-hopping and anti-jamming capability with phased Array Antenna Assemblies (AAAs) that send and receive tightly directed radio signals.[1]
The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics directed the Air Force and Navy to integrate MADL among the F-22, F-35 and B-2, to one another and to the rest of network.

The FA-70 need not be physically pointing at its target for weapons to be successful. This is possible because of sensors that can track and target a nearby aircraft from any orientation, provide the information to the pilot through his helmet (and therefore visible no matter which way they are looking), and provide the seeker-head of a missile with sufficient information. Recent missile types provide a much greater ability to pursue a target regardless of the launch orientation, called "High Off-Boresight" capability, although the speed and direction in which the munition is launched must physically speaking nonetheless affect the chance of success. Sensors use combined radio frequency and infra red (SAIRST) to continually track nearby aircraft while the pilot's helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) displays and selects targets. The helmet system replaces the display suite-mounted head-up display used in earlier fighters.
The FA-70's systems provide the edge in the "observe, orient, decide, and act" OODA loop; stealth and advanced sensors aid in observation (while being difficult to observe), automated target tracking helps in orientation, sensor fusion simplifies decision making, and the aircraft's controls allow action against targets without having to look away from them.

The Fly-By-Light Advanced System Hardware (FLASH) program is developing and demonstrating dual use fly-by-light hardware for flight control systems on military and commercial aircraft. Under the transport aircraft portion of this program, we and our industry teammates are demonstrating two representative fly-by-light systems. These fly-by-light demonstrations include a ground demonstration of a partial primary flight control system and a flight demonstration of an aileron trim control system. This paper describes these and discusses the dual use fly-by-light hardware developed for transport aircraft as well as the associated FLASH program demonstrations.

Adaptive Camouflage

Lightweight optoelectronic systems built around advanced image sensors and display panels have been proposed for making selected objects appear nearly transparent and thus effectively invisible. These systems are denoted "adaptive camouflage" because unlike traditional camouflage, they would generate displays that would change in response to changing scenes and lighting conditions. Fa-70 use 3 Generation based off of snake skin design

Next Generation Jammer

The United States Marine Corps is considering replacing their Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft with F-35s that have stealthy jammer pods attached.[204] On 30 September 2008, the United States Navy outlined the basic requirements of the NGJ and stated that the design must be modular and openThe Navy has selected four companies to submit designs for the Next Generation Jammer.[206] The NGJ will also have cyber attack capabilities where the AESA radar is used to insert tailored data streams into remote systems. the ITT-Boeing design for the NGJ includes six AESA arrays for all around coverage The team has been awarded a $42 million contract to develop their design based on ITT's experience with broadband electronically steerable antenna arrays.[2At the same time contracts were also awarded to Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.

Pratt & Whitney YF220pw-200

Scram-LACE

Scramjet

are mechanically very similar to ramjets. Like a ramjet, they consist of an inlet, a combustor, and a nozzle. The primary difference between ramjets and scramjets is that scramjets do not slow the oncoming airflow to subsonic speeds for combustion, they use supersonic combustion instead. The name "scramjet" comes from "supersonic combusting ramjet." Since scramjets use supersonic combustion they can operate at speeds above Mach 6 where traditional ramjets are too inefficient. Another difference between ramjets and scramjets comes from how each type of engine compresses the oncoming air flow: while the inlet provides most of the compression for ramjets, the high speeds at which scramjets operate allow them to take advantage of the compression generated by shock waves, primarily oblique shocks.[20]
Very few scramjet engines have ever been built and flown. In May 2010 the Boeing X-51 set the endurance record for the longest scramjet burn at over 200 seconds.[21]

Precooled jets / LACE

Intake air is chilled to very low temperatures at inlet in a heat exchanger before passing through a ramjet and/or turbojet and/or rocket engine. Easily tested on ground. Very high thrust/weight ratios are possible (~14) together with good fuel efficiency over a wide range of airspeeds, Mach 0-5.5+; this combination of efficiencies may permit launching to orbit, single stage, or very rapid, very long distance intercontinental travel. Exists only at the lab prototyping stage. Examples include RB545, Reaction Engines SABRE, ATREX. Requires liquid hydrogen fuel which has very low density and requires heavily insulated tankage.

Thrust Vector Control
Thrust Vector Control or Thrust Vectoring is a technology that deflects the mean flow of an engine jet from the centerline in order to transfer some force to the aimed axis. By that imbalance, a momentum is created and used to control the change of attitude of the aircraft. Among other things, thrust vectoring greatly improves maneuverability, even at high angles of attack or low speeds where conventional aerodynamic control surfaces lose all effectiveness. Thrust Vector Control is currently achieved by complex arrays of mechanical actuators capable of modifying the geometry of the nozzle and thus defect the flow. This variable geometry greatly increases weight and maintenance to the engine, and therefore limits the benefits from vectoring the thrust.

Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

Advanced-Attack / Advanced/Fighter-Attack (A-X / A/F-X) 1992-1993

In January 1991, with the cancellation of the ATA and the NATF, the Secretary of the Navy directed that planning commence for a new A-6 replacement program. This new program became the known as the A-X, an advanced, “high-end,” carrier-based multi-mission aircraft with day/night/all-weather capability, low observables, long range, two engines, two-crew, and advanced, integrated avionics and countermeasures. The Air Force participated in this new program from its initiation, still seeking a replacement for the F-111 and, in the longer term, the F-15E and F-117A.

The A-X was a joint program with participation by the Navy and the Air Force to replace current strike aircraft that are completing their service lives. The A-X would replace the Navy A-6 and the Air Force F-111, F-15E, and F-117. The A-X would offer major advantages over both the F-111 and A-6, some of which will be as much as 42 years old by the time the first A-X squardron was to become active with the Navy or the Air Force. The multi-mission capability of the A-X would provide the tools necessary to execute successfully any mission assigned. Its technology would be state-of-the-art, designed to neutralize future threats and to provide superb weapons delivery capability. The A-X was intended to be fast, highly maneuverable, and able to conduct a wide variety of autonomous missions. It was to be able to employ air-to-air missiles, antiradiation missiles, precision guided munitions, and unguided or dumb bombs. It was to have the latest survivability upgrades.

The A/F-X was designed as a multi-role attack/fighter aircraft for the Navy and a deep interdiction aircraft for the Air Force in response to a joint operational requirements document. The A/F-X is expected to have a new airframe configuration that incorporates advanced low-observable and associated materials technologies. The engine was to be from a new generation of engines exemplified by significant improvements in thrust-to-weight ratio and operation at high levels of turbine inlet temperature. The aircraft's avionics suite is expected to draw heavily on the integrated avionics from the F-22 program.

The Navy launched the AX program -- successor to the A-12 which was terminated for default by Secretary of Defense Cheney -- with a design competition planned for the concept exploration and definition phase. According to the Secretary of Defense, the AX was expected to possess a significant air-to-air and air-to-ground capability for both offensive and defensive purposes.

Contracts of $20M each were awarded to five contractor teams on 30 December 1991 (prime contractor listed first):

* Grumman/Lockheed/Boeing
* Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics
* McDonnell Douglas/Vought
* Rockwell/Lockheed
* General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas/Northrop

The original A-X / A/F-X CE/D work was due to be completed in September 1992. A solicitation for Demonstration/Validation (Dem/Val) proposals was expected in late 1992, leading to a Dem/Val start in 1994 and EMD in 1996. Under the Navy’s original plan, the short Dem/Val phase would consist of design refinements and other risk reduction activities, but would not include flying prototypes. However, in late 1992 Congress directed that the A-X Dem/Val phase also include competitive prototyping. This increased the projected duration of the Dem/Val phase from two to five years. Concurrently, as a result of the termination of the NATF in 1991, increased air-to-air requirements were added to the A-X, prompting a change in the name of the Program from Advanced Attack (A-X) to Advanced Attack/Fighter (A/F-X).

This competition would have seen two teams selected to build prototype aircraft. That phase was to be followed by the selection of one contractor for the crucial demonstration and validation [DemVal] phase. The existing A-X CE/D contracts were extended to reflect a revised Dem/Val strategy to accommodate flying prototypes. The expected IOC date of the A/F-X slipped from 2006 to 2008. A Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) Milestone I Review of the A/F-X Program was expected in Spring 1993; however, the BUR placed the A/F-X program on hold pending the outcome of the report. An Milestone I DAB for the A/F-X never took place. The Navy later rejected the idea of competitive prototypes for the AX as too expensive. The AX program, while intended to develop a less costly successor to the A-12, was nevertheless expected to cost at least $14,000,000,000.

The degree to which the AX could perform both air-to-air, as well as air-to-ground, missions, was an important consideration being defined during 1992. The specific mix of combat capabilities and airframe performance parameters was defined in the concept exploration phase of the AX program in 1992, as competing industry design teams formulated their specific proposals to meet the Navy's broad set of tentative operational requirements.

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Aircraft Assessment was convened to respond to direction received from Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, (Public Law 102-484). The Task Force first met on 21 January 1993; OSD requested the report be provided on 25 February 1993. During this time the Task Force met seven times.

Because the A/F-X program was still undergoing a design competition before Dem/Val, it was simply too early for the Task Force to make a technical risk assessment of the A/F-X aircraft. The A/F-X mission requirements for both the Navy and Air Force appear to be achievable, and the Navy is managing the program at this time to ensure adequate performance margins, including carrier suitability. Tradeoffs of cost, performance, and other requirements have been important elements of the current phase of the program Once prototype designs are submitted, a meaningful assessment of the A/F-X aircraft’s technical risk can be made. The planned Dem/Val program appeared to be structured to accommodate a substantial risk reduction effort.

A/F-X requirements called for a level of &sign innovation that justified a flying prototype before the start of E&MD. The A/F-X program was planned to follow an acquisition strategy for competitive prototyping of the aircraft during Dem/Val. If the design competition leading to Dem/Val provides a clear winner, then a single design could be prototyped. Because the A/F-X is likely to employ avionics concepts and common equipment from the F-22 program, avionics prototype testing in a flying testbed may be required only for selected components, systems integration and software.

Although the A/F-X was still in an early stage of development, the Navy and Air Force succeeded in arriving at a high degree of compatibility in the aircraft characteristics to meet their respective mission requirements. It was also planned that this aircraft will incorporate avionics having a substantial degree of commonality with the F-22.

The 1993 budget request contained $165.6 million to continue concept development of the AX medium attack aircraft for the Navy and the Air Force. During action in 1992 on this request, the House authorized $760.6 million for development of the AX, and required a competitive prototype strategy for the AX aircraft emphasizing current generation stealth technology and existing engines, radars, and avionics, with the competitive prototype phase be completed by no later than 1996. The Senate authorized a total of $50.0 million for AX development, and also endorsed a competitive prototype acquisition strategy. The Congress approved the $165.6 million as requested, and directed that that the Department of Defense should utilize current generation stealth technology and, to the maximum feasible extent, engines, radars, and avionics systems that exist or are in development.

The 14 July 1993 Defense Science Board Task Force on Tactical Aircraft Bottom Up Review found that the analytical foundation established by the BUR team provided valuable insights. The results demonstrated the value of survivability (driven principally by low observables), and swing capability (both air-to-air and air-to-ground capability), especially in combination. The results, therefore, reinforced the capabilities associated with the "F-22+" and the A/F-X. These capabilities supported the objective of maintaining overwhelming air superiority and the ability to strike the full range of targets with minimum attrition from day one.

The analytical results did not significantly discriminate between the F-18E/F and F-18C/D in a force which includes the F-22 and the A/F-X. However, during the expected ten year gap between the F-18E/F and A/F-X operational capability, the F-18E/F provided a significant enhancement. In addition to the roughly 30% improvement assessed in the performance model, the F-18E/F provided added flexibility in carrier operations, and includes provisions for growth which are limited by the current "F-18C/D airframe.

While the Defense Science Board Task Force strongly supported the need for the A/F-X, it was concerned about the program structure. The current program required $20 billion of research and development expenditures with significant operational capability not achieved for 20 years. Amortization of R&D is likely to approach $100 million per aircraft for the first production block by extrapolating current trends and consider only Navy use. The DSB suggested that a better approach to obtaining high end capability in limited numbers may be the dual airframe, common components approach which was recommended for JAF. The F-18E/F provided significant enhancement relative to the F-18C/D until the A/F-X enters the inventory in significant numbers (2010).

The Task Force observed that the tactical air community was not sufficiently well informed about US bomber capability and vice versa. The mutual understanding needs to be improved, so that the US can better exploit the synergy of long range bomber and tactical air employed jointly. It also called for a better understanding of the alternatives available to obtain deep strike. Besides longer range for tactical aircraft, the Task Force suggested considering bombers, shorter range f tactical aircraft with buddy refueling (to include refueling over enemy territory), standoff weapons, and TLAM launched from vertical tubes on ships. There was no new start program for the Navy operating alone that won't leave a significant time gap for deep strike. Perhaps the most critical issue was to better understand the number and nature of deep strike targets.

Accounting for future airframes (e.g. A/F-X) and upgrades, it seemed appropriate to keep separate track of recapitalization for engines, avionics, weapons, racks, launchers, low observable treatment of external stores, etc. In a future enironment with dramatically reduced production rates and much smaller production blocks, we will need to rationalize the ' critical. supporting subsystems to best support development and upgrade of multiple airframes.

On 1 September 1993, the release of the BUR announced the cancellation of the A/F-X as well as the MRF. As a result of the BUR, A/F-X efforts during the latter half of 1993 were directed toward closing out the program and transitioning applicable experience and results to the upcoming JAST program. In early 1993 the Congressional Budget Office had estimated that canceling the Navy's AX tactical aircraft program would save $3.6 billion over 5 years, under the theory that the FA-18E/F was adequate for another decade.

A core of A/F-X personnel performed a large portion of the working-level planning and definition of the emerging JAST Program. The A/F-X CE/D contracts were extended a second time, through 17 December 1993, to allow the contractors sufficient time to bring their activities to a logical conclusion. Each of the four teams received $3.3 M contracts to close out their efforts because the airplane was deemed unaffordable. At one time Vought had over 150 people working on the project full and part time, including a contingent of McDonnell Douglas people. All A/F-X program operations ended on 31 December 1993.


General characteristics

* Crew: 2 (Pilot and Radar Intercept Officer)
* Length: 18.80 m (61 ft 8 in)
* Wingspan: Wingspan, fully forward: 20.62 m (67 ft 8 in)
* Height: ll: 4.52 m (14 ft 10 in)
* Wing area: 1000 ft²
* Empty weight: 30,000 lb
* Loaded weight: 60,600 lb
* Max takeoff weight: 65,000 lb
* Powerplant: 2× G Pratt & Whitney YF220 , 65,000 lbf

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 2.34 (1,544 mph, 2,485 km/h) at high altitude
* Combat radius: 500 nmi (575 mi, 926 km)
* Ferry range: 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km)
* Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,200 m)
* Rate of climb: >45,000 ft/min (229 m/s)
* Wing loading: 113.4 lb/ft² (553.9 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.91


Armament

* Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan 6-barreled gatling cannon, with 675 rounds
* Hardpoints: 10 total: 6× under-fuselage, 2× under nacelles and 2× on wing gloves[87][N 2] with a capacity of 14,500 lb (6,600 kg) of ordnance and fuel tanks[36]
* Missiles:
o Air-to-air missiles: AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-9 Sidewinder

o Air-to-air missiles:
+ AIM-120 AMRAAM
+ AIM-132 ASRAAM
+ AIM-9X Sidewinder
o Air-to-ground weapons:
4× AGM-88 HARM
+ AGM-154 JSOW
+ AGM-158 JASSM



Art Trade Kryptid [link]
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

Stingbat LHX Stealth Helicopter Concept

In the 1980s, Hughes and other American aircraft manufacturers investigated concepts for the construction of radar-evading "Stealth" helicopters. Testors combined many of the ideas then under development -- including a faceted composite exterior, scimitar-shaped blades and a propeller-less tail -- to create this conjectural design
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

Aggressor F-16 Viper, Aviation Nation 2011.
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

The loser of the Joint Strike Fighter Programme that occured in 2003 was Boeing's rather odd looking X-32 Joint Strike Fighter.

My drawing depicts the X-32B, which was the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of Boeing's demonstrator.

It's just a quick refresher back to pencil drawings. It's done in HB and 4B on 120GSM A3 Cartridge paper. I took a photo instead of scanning it, as my scanner can only scan A4. Unfortunately, the camera didn't do any justice to the drawing.

The little logo in the bottom right-hand corner of the drawing is an actual sticker of the Pratt and Whitney emblem.

Hope you like the drawing
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II Blue Angels

The Blue Angels have flown over 10 different aircraft in the team’s 65 year history. Originally, the team flew four aircraft in the signature “Diamond” formation and expanded to six aircraft to showcase both the diamond and solos high performance capability as well as the precision formation flying taught to all Naval Aviators. Today, the squadron flies the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet and the Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules. When the squadron receives a F/A-18 Hornet from the fleet, which are at the end of their carrier arrestment functionality, we make a variety of modifications, including removing the nose cannon to install a smoke-fluid system, inverting a fuel pump, installing a stop watch and adjustable constant-tension stick spring, as well as the world-wide recognizable paint scheme.

The first Jet-Assisted Take-Off (JATO) performance by the Blue Angels' C-130, affectionately known as “Fat Albert”, took place at NAS Pensacola, FL in November of 1975. Eight solid fuel JATO rocket bottles, each producing 1,000 pounds of thrust, helped propel Fat Albert skyward and captivated millions of spectators each year. These JATO bottles were produced in the Vietnam era to help aircraft take off from short, unimproved runways at heavy weights. The last known stockpile of JATO bottles were expended during the Blue Angels' 2009 show season and ended with the last JATO performance for Fat Albert at the NAS Pensacola, FL Air Show in November of 2009.

win 35 comes in it will be 11 aircraft type


General characteristics

Crew: 1
Length: 51.4 ft (15.67 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft[N 6] (10.7 m)
Height: 14.2 ft[N 7] (4.33 m)
Wing area: 460 ft²[102] (42.7 m²)
Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,540 lb[68][N 8][260] (22,470 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[N 9] (31,800 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[261][N 10] (125 kN)
Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[261][262] (191 kN)
Internal fuel capacity: 18,480 lb (8,382 kg)[N 11]

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[98] (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h)
Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
Combat radius: over 590 nmi[N 12] (1,090 km) on internal fuel[263]
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[264] (18,288 m)
Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight:
With full fuel: 0.87
With 50% fuel: 1.07
g-Limits: 9 g[N 13]

Armament

Guns: 1 × General Dynamics GAU-22/A Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 4-barreled gatling cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[N 14][98]
Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[98][102] and 2 internal bays with 2 pylons each[102] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)[69] and provisions to carry combinations of:
Missiles:
AIM-120 AMRAAM
AIM-132 ASRAAM
AIM-9X Sidewinder
IRIS-T
JDRADM (after 2020)[265]
AGM-154 JSOW
AGM-158 JASSM[110]
JSM
Bombs:
Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs
Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
JDAM-series
B61 nuclear bomb[266]

Avionics

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/APG-81 AESA radar
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) missile warning system
BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) electronic warfare system
Harris Corporation Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) communication system

Differences between variants F-35A
CTOL F-35B
STOVL F-35C
Carrier version
Length 51.4 ft (15.7 m) 51.3 ft (15.6 m) 51.5 ft (15.7 m)
Wingspan 35 ft (10.7 m) 35 ft (10.7 m) 43 ft (13.1 m)
Wing Area 460 ft² (42.7 m²) 460 ft² (42.7 m²) 668 ft² (62.1 m²)
Empty weight 29,300 lb (13,300 kg) 32,000 lb (14,500 kg) 34,800 lb (15,800 kg)
Internal fuel 18,500 lb (8,390 kg) 13,300 lb (6,030 kg) 19,600 lb (8,890 kg)
Max takeoff weight 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) 60,000 lb (27,000 kg) 70,000 lb (31,800 kg)
Range 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) 900 nmi (1,670 km) 1,400 nmi (2,520 km)
Combat radius on
internal fuel 590 nmi (1,090 km) 450 nmi (833 km) 640 nmi (1,185 km)
Thrust/weight
full fuel
50% fuel 0.87
1.07 0.90
1.04 0.75
0.91
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.