Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Similar Deviations
Promotional art for the 'The Tyranny of King Washington' DLC to be released fro Assassin's Creed 3 after launch.
I do not own this material.
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Mech versus Spider tank battle 3d concept.

Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

U.S Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Law Enforcement officers have declared war on Earth against an alien race, while other countries have began their own defense, the United States has declared war against the aliens in their own soil.
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Northrop Grumman X-47B UCAS-D Air Vehicle System

The Pegasus unmanned air vehicle was initially developed under private funding by the integrated systems sector of Northrop Grumman at El Segundo in California. Pegasus received its X-47A designation in June 2001.

The X-47A provided a proof of concept for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the US Navy UCAV-N programme, and is spiral 0 in the spiral development programme targeted towards US Navy requirements. A similar programme managed by DARPA and the US Air Force covered the development of the Boeing X-45 targeted towards the US Air Force requirement.

DARPA announced the joint unmanned ombat air vehicle (J-UCAS) programme to meet both the air force and naval requirements. In October 2005, DARPA handed the programme over to a joint USN and USAF office. The spiral 1 development phase under the J-UCAS programme includes the design of the improved demonstrator air vehicles, X-45C and the X-47B.
"The X-47 Pegasus is a
US Navy unmanned combat air vehicle with a stealthy planform design."

The roll out ceremony of the proof-of-concept X-47A vehicle was in July 2001 and the first flight was successfully completed in February 2003.

The X-47B is a larger variant of the X-47A. In August 2004, DARPA awarded the contract to Northrop Grumman for three X-47B demonstrator UCAVs and an operational assessment phase to last from 2007–2009.Construction of the X-47B began in June 2005.

In February 2006, the J-UCAS programme was cancelled by the US Department of Defense and the USAF and USN were to follow separate UAV programmes. Northrop Grumman halted work on the X-47B.

In August 2007, Northrop Grumman was selected by US Navy for the unmanned combat air system demonstrator (UCAS-D) with a version of the X-47B with Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engine. The programme is to demonstrate the suitability of an autonomous UAV for aircraft carrier operations and identify critical technologies.

Two demonstrator air vehicles are being built. The first was rolled out in December 2008. Flight testing is scheduled to begin in late 2009, carrier landings in 2011 and the programme will conclude in 2013. It will include catapult take-offs, arrested landings and flight in the immediate vicinity of the carrier.
X-47 Pegasus air vehicle

The airframe is a stealthy planform design. It is diamond-kite shaped with a 55° backward sweep on the leading edge and a 35° forward sweep on the trailing edge. The X-47A has a wingspan of 8.47m and is 8.5m long; the dimensions of the X-47B have yet to be finalised.

Scaled Composites Inc of Mohave, California, were contracted to manufacture the all-carbon composite airframe. The air vehicle has no tail or vertical fin. Instead of a traditional rudder for yaw control, the upper and lower surfaces are each fitted with two sections of moving surfaces. A large elevon is clearly visible at the mid-section of each trailing edge.

The vehicle is robustly built for carrier take-off and landings and uses a conventional wheeled take-off and landing with an arrestor hook. The retractable tricycle-type landing gear consists of a single nose wheel, twin wheel main landing gear and a fully retractable arrestor hook. Smiths Aerospace is providing the landing gear for the X-47B.
"In April 2007, Northrop Grumman submitted a bid to the US Navy for the unmanned combat air system demonstrator (UCAS-D)."
Pegasus avionics

The Pegasus is equipped with an avionics suite supplied by BAE Systems Platform Solutions of Johnson City, New York. The avionics and vehicle management computer performs flight control processing, autopilot control, engine control processing, mission command and control, navigation and other functions.

The computer features an embedded, open-architecture CsLEOS real-time operating system which uses 'brick-wall' time and memory partitioning to allow multiple applications to run on the same system without interfering with each other.

The system also provides multiple scheduling modes, allowing users to switch between different schedule profiles in real time.

The navigation systems include the US Navy shipboard relative global positioning system (SRGPS) automatic landing system.
Turbofan engines

The Pegasus is powered by a single Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D-5C turbofan engine rated at 14,19kN. The air vehicle carries 472kg of fuel but has a maximum capacity of 717kg of fuel for long-range operations or for increased loiter times.

X-47B Specifications
Wingspan......................................62.1 ft
Length...........................................38.2 ft
Altitude..........................................> 40,000 ft
Range............................................> 2,100 nm
Top Speed.....................................High subsonic
PowerPlant....................................Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220U
System Provisions
Autonomous Aerial Refueling........Probe & Drogue (USN)
Boom Receptacle (USAF)
Weapons Bays..............................4,500 lb
Sensors.........................................EO / IR / SAR / ISAR /
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

lockheed SR-85 black knight ATF Concept

Lockheed High Speed ATF Concept - 1985

baeed on design from lockheed post sr-71 Concept

Since the term "history" is a bit vague, we'll take this opportunity to describe the design evolution of the F-22, especially since Lockheed Martin's Code One magazine has published an excellent two-part article (Part 1, Part 2) on the subject. A summary of these articles is provided below.

What became the F-22 project officially began in 1981 when the US Air Force Aeronautical Systems Division, or ASD, put out a request for concepts for an advanced tactical fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle. Key to the desired replacement were the application of low-observables (or stealth) technology, the ability to supercruise (or fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburners), maneuverability, and short-takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. Lockheed believed high speed and the ability to carry long-range weapons were key to the ATF mission, so its original concept was derived from the YF-12A, forerunner of the SR-71 Blackbird. Likewise, Boeing also focused on high speed but addressed stealth by including internal weapons bays. General Dynamics produced two concepts. The first was a fairly conventional design but included some advanced stealth treatments and avionics concepts. The second was a flying wing concept that eventually led to the Navy's A-12 Avenger.

Some examples of early concepts include this relatively conventional design as well as a vehicle called the Missileer armed with several long-range air-to-air missiles. Ideas from General Dynamics included such proposals as a V/STOL design known as the Jiminy Cricket and a stealth design dubbed the Marshmallow.

In September 1983, contracts were awarded to each of the major manufacturers of the time (Boeing, General Dynamics, Grumman, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, and Rockwell) asking each to define concept vehicles and identify key skills, abilities, and technologies needed to develop such a fighter. Convinced by these studies that an ATF was practical, the Air Force subsequently issued a request for proposals (RFP) in September 1985. Because Lockheed's YF-12 concept had been rated last among the contenders in the concept phase, the company decided to start over from scratch and develop a new design based on the F-117 stealth fighter. However, the faceted surface approach used on the F-117 had already lost Lockheed contracts to develop the B-2 bomber and the Navy's A-12, so engineers began exploring curved shapes, building several test shapes and evaluating them on the company's radar range. The resulting design featured a highly flared nose, relatively conventional wing, and canted vertical tails.

Boeing engineers, meanwhile, designed their concept around the weapons bay and used their skills in avionics and composites to meet the ATF requirements. Boeing chose a V-tail design over four tails to improve stealth and reduce weight. General Dynamics engineers finally settled on a semi-tailless approach matching a large wing full of sawtooths with a single vertical tail.

As the dem/val phase of the competition drew to a close, the Air Force encouraged teaming partnerships between the various competitors so the final winning designs would beneift from the best the industry had to offer. Thus, McDonnell Douglas became a partner with Northrop, and Boeing and General Dynamics teamed with Lockheed. These companies, along with Grumman and Rockwell, responded with ATF proposals on 28 July 1986. After a three month review, the Air Force announced Lockheed and Northrop had developed the best ATF concepts, and each was awarded $691 million to develop, build, and flight test prototypes, the Lockheed YF-22 and Northrop YF-23. Though Lockheed's winning proposal had evolved slightly during those three months, it was the company's understanding of stealth and its impact on operations as well as the company's plan to reduce risk and keep costs under control that won the contract rather than the specific characteristics of their design.

Immediately after the Air Force announcement, representatives of Boeing, GD, and Lockheed met and each spent two hours describing their ATF concepts. From these discussions, the design team identified the strengths of each concept and blended them together to create a baseline design. Using this baseline as a springboard, engineers at all three companies began an intense series of trade studies to identify the best overall configuration meeting all the design requirements. These iterations looked at traditional trapezoidal wings vs. the diamond wing eventually selected, using horizontal and vertical tails vs. combined V-tails, various engine inlets, and a main-bay payload of six missiles vs. eight. The below graphic gives a better idea of how the final F-22 configuration evolved over time.

Although this effort yielded a far superior design in the end, the final concepts leading up to the YF-22 were still unable to meet the Air Force requirements for both short takeoff and landing and supercruise simultaneously. Once the Air Force dropped the STOL requirement, the aft portion of the aircraft was redesigned allowing significant reductions in drag and making supercruising possible.

Following a decade of concept studies, design reviews, and construction, both the Lockheed and Northrop ATF prototypes first flew in 1990. While Northrop had put greater emphasis on stealth, the YF-22's greater maneuverability and better designed weapons bay are considered the reasons it was selected over the YF-23. In addition, there were some questions about Northrop's financial health and ability to mitigate risk. While the competition was underway, engineers at Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics had continued to refine the YF-22 prototype taking into account lessons learned from the flight test program. Thus, the production F-22, first flown in 1997, includes a number of modifications intended to improve aircraft performance and operability. Despite budget cuts and close Congressional scrutiny, the F-22 is due to enter service in 2005.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 8 April 2001

Total Length: 159 feet, 7 inches
Fuselage Length: 138 feet, 0 inches
Wingspan: 81 feet, 1 inch
Horizontal Tailspan: 15 feet, 3 inches
Chine Sweep Angle: 82.6 degrees
Leading Edge Wing Sweep Angle: 51.2 degrees

I estimate its empty weight to be around 120,000 pounds, but that is just speculation.

Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Sooooooo I found some mods....
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

This is the Cobra Destroyer from Games Workshops Battlefleet Gothic tabletop wargame.

The model was produced by a freind of mine called Mechmaster who gave me permission to use the model. (I will eventually build my own as I don't often like using other peoples models for actual release.

I used photoshop to produce the special effects for the scene though 3dsMax was used to produce the plasma bolt effects before I merged them onto the Cobra herself.

This image was produced for the Battlefleet Gothic modification for Dawn of War as a gift background for the "fans" though we haven't released the mod yet. (Lotsa work going on to remedy this)

Website here: [link]

PS: Yes the name is corny, we jokingly used it in an MSN session and liked it too much to not use it.
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Boeing-2707-200 af1

The Boeing 2707 was developed as the first American supersonic transport (SST). After winning a competition for a government-funded contract to build an American SST, Boeing began development at its facilities in Seattle, Washington. Rising costs and the lack of a clear market led to its cancellation in 1971 before two prototypes had been completed.

Early studies

Boeing had worked on a number of small-scale SST studies since 1952. In 1958, it established a permanent research committee, which grew to a $1 million effort by 1960. The committee proposed a variety of alternative designs, all under the name Model 733. Most of the designs featured a large delta wing, but in 1959 another design was offered as an offshoot of Boeing's efforts in the swing-wing TFX project (which led to the purchase of the General Dynamics F-111 instead of the Boeing offering). In 1960, an internal "competition" was run on a baseline 150-seat aircraft for trans-Atlantic routes, and the swing-wing version won.[1]

Shortly after taking office, President John F. Kennedy tasked the Federal Aviation Administration with preparing a report on "national aviation goals for the period between now and 1970".[2] The study was prompted in the wake of a number of worrying accidents, which led to the belief that the industry was becoming moribund. Two projects were started, Project Beacon on new navigational systems and air traffic control, and Project Horizon on advanced civil aviation developments.

Only one month later the FAA's new director, Najeeb Halaby, produced the Commission on National Aviation Goals, better known as Project Horizon. Among other suggestions, the report was used as a platform to promote the SST. Halaby argued that a failure to enter this market would be a "stunning setback".[3] The report was met by skepticism by most others. Kennedy had put Lyndon Johnson on the SST file, and he turned to Robert McNamara for guidance. McNamara was highly sceptical of the SST project and savaged Halaby's predictions, but was afraid the project might be turned over to the DoD, so was careful to press for further studies.[3]

The basic concept behind the SST was that its fast flight would allow them to fly more trips than a subsonic aircraft, leading to higher utilization. However, it did this at the cost of greatly increased fuel use. If fuel costs were to change dramatically, SSTs would not be competitive. These problems were well understood within the industry; the IATA released a set of "design imperatives" for an SST that were essentially impossible to meet - the release was a warning to promoters of the SST within the industry.[3]
[edit] Concorde

By mid-1962, it was becoming clear that tentative talks earlier that year between the Bristol Aeroplane Company and Sud Aviation on a merger of their SST projects were more serious than originally thought. In November 1962, still to the surprise of many, the Concorde project was announced.[4] In spite of marginal economics, nationalistic and political arguments had led to wide support for the project, especially from Charles de Gaulle.[5] This set off something of a wave of panic in other countries, as it was widely believed that almost all future commercial aircraft would be supersonic,[6] and it looked like the Europeans would start off with a huge lead. As if this weren't enough, it soon became known that the Soviets were also working on a similar design.[7]

Three days after the Concorde announcement, Halaby wrote a letter to Kennedy suggesting that if they did not immediately start their own SST effort, the US would lose 50,000 jobs, $4 billion in income, and $3 billion in capital as local carriers turned to foreign suppliers.[8] A report from the Supersonic Transport Advisory Group (STAG) followed, noting that the European team was in the lead, and calling for more advanced design with better economics. At the time, more advanced generally meant higher speed. The baseline design in the report called for an aircraft with Mach 3 performance with 2,400 mile range in order to serve the domestic market. They felt that there was no way to build a transatlantic design with that performance in time to catch the Concorde, abandoning the trans-Atlantic market to the Europeans.[5]

In spite of vocal opponents, questions about the technical requirements, and extremely negative reports about its economic viability, the SST project gathered strong backing from industry and the FAA. Johnson sent a report to the president asking for $100 million in funding for FY64. This might have been delayed, but in May, Pan Am announced they had placed options on the Concorde. Juan Trippe leaked the information earlier that month, stating that the airline would not ignore the SST market, and would buy from Europe if need be.[9]

Kennedy introduced the National Supersonic Transport program on 5 June 1963 in a speech at the US Air Force Academy.
[edit] Design competition

Requests for Proposals were sent out to airframe manufacturers Boeing, Lockheed, and North American for the airframes; and Curtiss-Wright, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney for engines. The FAA estimated that there would be a market for 500 SSTs by 1990. In spite of not having even a selected design, orders from air carriers started flowing in immediately.[10] Preliminary designs were submitted to the FAA on January 15, 1964.[11]

Boeing's entry was essentially identical to the swing-wing Model 733 studied in 1960; it was known officially as the Model 733-197, but also referred to both as the 1966 Model and the Model 2707. The latter name became the best known in public, while Boeing continued to use 733 model numbers. The design resembled the future B-1 Lancer bomber, with the exception that the four engines were mounted in individual nacelles instead of the box-like system mounted in pairs on the four-engined Lancer.[11] The blended wing root spanned almost all of cabin area, and the aircraft had a much more stubby look than the models that would ultimately evolve. The wing featured extensive high-lift devices on both the leading and trailing edges, The proposal also included fuselage stretches that increased capacity from the normal 150 seats to 227.

Lockheed's entry was essentially an enlarged Concorde. Like the Concorde, it featured a long and skinny fuselage, engines podded under the wing, and a compound delta planform. The CL-823 also lacked any form of high-lift devices on the wings, relying on engine power and long runways for liftoff. The only major design difference was the use of individual pods for the engines, rather than pairs. The CL-823 was the largest of the first-round entires, with typical seating for 218.[11]

The North American NAC-60 was, unsurprisingly, essentially a scaled-up B-70 with a less tapered fuselage and new compound-delta wing. The design retained the high-mounted canard and box-like engine area under the fuselage. Compared to the other designs, the rounded nose profile and more cylindrical cross-section gave the NAC-60 a decidedly more conventional look than the other entries. It also meant it flew slower, at M2.65.[11] The use of high-lift devices on the leading edge of the wing lowered the landing angles to the point where the "drooping nose" was not required.

A "downselect" of the proposed models resulted in the NAC-60 and Curtiss-Wright efforts being dropped from the program, with both Boeing and Lockheed asked to offer SST models meeting the more demanding FAA requirements and able to use either of the remaining engine designs. In November, another design review was held, and by this time Boeing had scaled up the original design into a 250-seat model, the Model 733-290. Due to concerns about jet blast, the four engines were moved to a position underneath an enlarged tailplane. When the wings were in their swept-back position, they merged with the tailplane to produce a delta-wing planform.

Both companies were now asked for considerably more detailed proposals, to be presented for final selection in 1966. When this occurred, Boeing's design was now the 300-seat Model 733-390. Both the Boeing and Lockheed L-2000 designs were presented in September 1966 along with full-scale mock-ups. A lengthy review followed, and on December 31, 1966, Boeing was announced as the winner the next day.[12] The design would be powered by the General Electric GE4/J5 engines. Lockheed's L-2000 was judged simpler to produce and less risky, but its performance was slightly lower and its noise levels slightly higher.
[edit] Refining the design

The -390 would have been an advanced aircraft even if it had been only subsonic. It was one of the earliest wide-body designs, with 2-3-2 row seating arrangementat its widest section[12] in a fuselage that was considerably wider than aircraft then in service. The SST mock-up included both overhead storage for smaller items with restraining nets, as well as large drop-in bins between sections of the aircraft. In the main 247-seat tourist-class cabin, the entertainment system consisted of retractable televisions placed between every sixth row in the overhead storage. In the 30-seat first-class area, every pair of seats included smaller televisions in a console between the seats. Windows were only 6" due to the high altitudes the aircraft flew at maximizing the pressure on them, but the internal pane was 12" to give an illusion of size.

Boeing predicted that if the go-ahead were given, construction of the SST prototypes would begin in early 1967 and the first flight could be made in early 1970. Production aircraft could start being built in early 1969, with the flight testing in late 1972 and certification by mid-1974.[12]

A major change in the design came when Boeing added canards behind the nose—which added weight. Boeing also faced insurmountable weight problems due to the swing-wing mechanism and the design could not achieve sufficient range. In October 1968, the company was finally forced to abandon the variable geometry wing.[13][14] The Boeing team fell back on a tailed delta fixed wing. The new design was also smaller, seating 234, and known as the Model 2707-300. Work began on a full-sized mock-up and two prototypes in September 1969, now two years behind schedule.

A promotional film claimed that airlines would soon pay back the federal investment in the project, and it was projected that SSTs would dominate the skies with subsonic jumbo jets (such as Boeing's own 747) being only a passing intermediate fad.
[edit] Environmental concerns

By this point, the opposition to the project was becoming increasingly vocal. Environmentalists were the most influential group, voicing concerns about possible depletion of the ozone layer due to the high altitude flights, and about noise at airports and from sonic booms.[15]

The latter became the most significant rallying point, especially after the publication of the anti-SST paperback, "SST and Sonic Boom Handbook" edited by William Shurcliff, which claimed that a single flight would "leave a 'bang-zone' 50 miles wide by 2,000 miles long" along with a host of problems that would cause. In tests in 1965 with the XB-70 near Oklahoma City, the path had a maximum width of 16 miles, but still resulted in 9,594 complaints of damage to buildings, 4,629 formal damage claims, and 229 claims for a total of $12,845.32, mostly for broken glass and cracked plaster.[16] As the opposition widened, the claimed negative effects became ever odder, including upsetting people who do delicate work (e.g., brain surgeons), harming persons with nervous ailments,[15] and even inducing miscarriages.

Other concerns were also added to the list, although the evidence for them was essentially non-existent. One was that the water vapor released by the engines into the stratosphere would envelop the earth in a "global gloom". Presidential Adviser Russell Train warned that a fleet of 500 SSTs flying at 65,000 ft. for a period of years could raise stratospheric water content by as much as 50% to 100%. According to Train, this could lead to greater ground-level heat and hamper the formation of ozone.[15] Later, an additional threat to the ozone was found in the exhaust's nitrogen oxides, a threat that was later validated by MIT.[17]

The cause was picked up by the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation and the Wilderness Society.[18] Supersonic flight over land in the United States was eventually banned, and several states added additional restrictions or banned the Concorde outright.

The project also suffered political opposition from the left, which disliked the government subsidizing the development of a commercial aircraft to be used by private enterprise. The anti-SST campaign was led by Democratic Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin), who saw the campaign as a crusade against unnecessary spending by the federal government.[15]

Halaby attempted to dismiss these concerns, stating "The supersonics are coming−as surely as tomorrow. You will be flying one version or another by 1980 and be trying to remember what the great debate was all about."[15]
[edit] Government funding cut

In March 1971, despite the project's strong support by the administration of President Richard Nixon, the U.S. Senate rejected further funding. A counterattack was organized under the banner of the "National Committee for an American SST", which urged supporters to send in $1 to keep the program alive.[19] Afterward, letters of support from aviation buffs, containing nearly $1 million worth of contributions, poured in. Labor unions also supported the SST project, worried that the winding down of both the Vietnam War and Project Apollo would lead to mass unemployment in the aviation sector. AFL-CIO President George Meany suggested that the race to develop a first-generation SST was already lost, but the US should "enter the competition for the second generation —the SSTs of the 1980s and 1990s."

In spite of this newfound support, the House of Representatives also voted to end SST funding on 20 May 1971. The vote was highly contentious. Gerald Ford, then Republican Leader, shouted Meany's claims that "If you vote for the SST, you are insuring 13,000 jobs today plus 50,000 jobs in the second tier and 150,000 jobs each year over the next ten years." Sidney Yates, leading the "no" camp, demanded a public vote (at that time a newly introduced procedure) and eventually won the vote against further funding, 215 to 204.[20]

At the time, there were 115 unfilled orders by 25 airlines, while Concorde had 74 orders from 16 customers.[21] The two prototypes were never completed. Due to the loss of several government contracts and a downturn in the civilian aviation market, Boeing reduced its number of employees by more than 60,000. The SST became known as "the airplane that almost ate Seattle." A billboard was erected in 1971 that read, "Will the last person leaving Seattle - turn out the lights"[22]
[edit] Legacy

The supercritical airfoil, developed for the SST,[23] is now a standard feature of jet aircraft.

The Museum of Flight in Seattle parks its Concorde a few blocks from the building where the original mockup was housed in Seattle.[24] While the Soviet Tu-144 had a short service life,[25] Concorde was successful enough to fly as a small luxury fleet from 1976 until 2003, for the most part highly profitable for the airlines in the niche transatlantic market. As the most advanced supersonic transports became some of the oldest airframes in the fleet, they eventually fell due to rising maintenance costs.[26]

Though many designs have been studied since, it is unlikely similar aircraft will be economically feasible in the foreseeable future. Concorde's model of cooperation paved the way for Airbus, Boeing's most formidable competitor.[27] Seattle's economy is now more diverse, and 2007 made Boeing a leader in sales again. Boeing's Future of Flight museum has the story and models of all of its production jetliners and Concorde, but not the SST project.

One of the wooden mockups was displayed at the SST Aviation Exhibit Center in Kissimmee, Florida from 1973 to 1981. It is now on display at the Hiller Aviation Museum of San Carlos, California.[28]

Seattle's NBA basketball team formed in 1968 was dubbed the Seattle SuperSonics or just "Sonics", a name inspired by the newly won SST contract.[29]
[edit] Airline commitments

By October 1969, there were delivery positions reserved for 122 Boeing SSTs for by 26 airlines.[30]

Aer Lingus (2)
Aeronaves de México (2)
Air France (6)
Air India (3)
Alitalia (6)
American Airlines (6)
BOAC (6)
Braniff Airways (2)
Canadian Pacific (3)
Continental Airlines (3)
Delta (3)
Eastern (3)
El Al (2)
Iberia (3)
Japan Airlines (5)
KLM (3)
Lufthansa (3)
Northwest Airlines (4)
Pakistan International Airlines (2)
Pan American World Airways (15)
Qantas (6)
Trans America (2)
Trans World Airlines (10)
United Airlines (6)
World Airways (3)
Specifications (Boeing 2707-200)

Data from[citation needed]

General characteristics

Payload: 75,000 lb (34,000 kg) maximum
Length: 306 ft (93.27 m)
Wingspan: 180 feet 4 inches (54.97 m) spread
105 feet 9 inches (32.23 m) swept ()
Height: 46 ft 3 in (14.10 m)
Empty weight: 287,500 pounds (130,400 kg) (International model)
Loaded weight: 675,000 pounds (306,000 kg) (maximum ramp weight)
Max. landing weight: 430,000 pounds (200,000 kg)


Cruise speed: Mach 2.7: 1,800 miles per hour (2,900 km/h)
Range: 4,250 mi (6,840 km) with 277 passengers
Takeoff length: 5,700 feet (1,700 m)
Landing length: 6,500 feet (2,000 m)

obama cant have one is exceptional he is not
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Lockheed FA-33 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: 1× G Pratt & Whitney YF220 , 65,000


• * 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-9X Sidewinder
MBDA Meteor (Pending further funding)[343]
JDRADM (after 2020)[344]
Air-to-surface missiles:
AGM-158 JASSM[163]
Brimstone missile
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
Anti-ship missiles:
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)
B61 nuclear bomb[345]


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


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



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.

Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.

Thisone started as a comiccon challenge entry that never came to be. (there was no time to do it at the time)
some weeks ago i decided to bring it back and now its finished.
The idea was to give the character an armored look but keeping the original gray-blue outfit.
well, hope you like it.
i spect to be doing an animation soon.
Add a Comment:
No comments have been added yet.