F-35 and X-47B

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21198
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 02:47

Tidy RogerAway has some BOING! MQ-25 outside in the distance ZOOOOOOOM Lens pics:
Exclusive: New Photos Of Boeing's MQ-25 Tanker Drone On The Ramp In St. Louis
09 Jan 2018 Tyler Rogoway

Photo: http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/found ... ahha41.jpg

Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... n-st-louis
Attachments
BOING!mq25outside.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1639
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 05:21

Since stealth or VLO was not a requirement for the MQ-25 contract, I don't understand why Northop Grumman didn't just enter a variant of their MQ-4C Triton. Certainly they should have been able to have enough push, and they'd have the aero efficiency. They could later offer maritime ISR as an upgrade...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7689
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 05:44

The requirements for the MQ-25 and MQ-4C are vastly different. One is a mid-altitude refueler (needs cargo space and carrier launch ability) while the 4C is a high-altitude ISR platform with no carrier ability.

As LM has said with the F-35, VLO shaping did not add a lot of complexity or cost to the F-35.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1639
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 05:53

Now I'm just going to sit back and wait and see if this thread gets locked like the RAN carrier thread. For the life of me, I can't figure out why that thread was locked.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 06:09

SpudmanWP wrote:The requirements for the MQ-25 and MQ-4C are vastly different. One is a mid-altitude refueler (needs cargo space and carrier launch ability) while the 4C is a high-altitude ISR platform with no carrier ability.

As LM has said with the F-35, VLO shaping did not add a lot of complexity or cost to the F-35.


....hmmmm?, wondering if this is the Boeing UCLASS design (engine, carrier gear and hook, flight controls, etc.) revised/ applied for CBARS; mitigate a lot of engineering.
:wink:

...also, the air intake (on top) should be an interesting arrangement with the dynamics of flight for approach and trap, but I'm sure that Boeing has computer simulated the airflow for all of the flight envelope in UCLASS!
:shock:
Last edited by neptune on 13 Jan 2018, 21:59, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 719
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 07:08

steve2267 wrote:Now I'm just going to sit back and wait and see if this thread gets locked like the RAN carrier thread. For the life of me, I can't figure out why that thread was locked.

me neither, perhaps south china seas and their fortification ? It was a bit off topic.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1639
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post13 Jan 2018, 07:13

optimist wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Now I'm just going to sit back and wait and see if this thread gets locked like the RAN carrier thread. For the life of me, I can't figure out why that thread was locked.

me neither, perhaps south china seas and their fortification ? It was a bit off topic.


South China Seas has more relevance to the RAN-needs-to-get-back-in-the-carrier thread (yeah, title was slightly different, but still) and F-35B's off those carriers, than stealth tanks in the Here-come-the-German's thread...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21198
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Jan 2018, 04:16

:devil: No sub so gave them da finga - DID THEY RECOGNISE IT? :doh: We have info on this from wayback - wattle I find...?

USE 'gesture' (no quotes) for search THIS THREAD & Youse'll find a few interesting hits - search for ALL THE TEXT - or not.
Gesture Recognition Could Control Unmanned Aircraft On Carrier Decks
23 Jan 2018 Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"On the noisy and busy flight decks of U.S. Navy carriers, aircraft directors use a lexicon of gestures to communicate with pilots as they choreograph their maneuvers around the deck. The Navy plans to bring unmanned aircraft onto carrier decks in the early 2020s, but how they will be controlled there has not been decided. The service’s desire is to integrate unmanned aircraft into manned operations with the minimum impact on deck procedures. One option could be a system that ..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/future-aerospac ... rier-decks
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21198
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Jan 2018, 11:05

Co-incidentally today 50th anniversary of PUEBLO capture by NORKs was 'DA FINGA' photo published thoust seest below:
CAPTION: "The captured crew of the USS Pueblo giving the “Hawaiian symbol for good luck,” 1968 :devil: :doh: :drool: :roll: 8) :mrgreen: https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... eblo_2.png

North Korea Commemorates 50th Anniversary of USS Pueblo Seizure https://news.usni.org/2018/01/23/the-us ... ears-later
Attachments
PUEBLOfickleFingerOfFate1968.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1317
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Jan 2018, 20:07

spazsinbad wrote:Tidy RogerAway has some BOING! MQ-25 outside in the distance ZOOOOOOOM Lens pics:
Exclusive: New Photos Of Boeing's MQ-25 Tanker Drone On The Ramp In St. Louis
09 Jan 2018 Tyler Rogoway

Photo: http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/found ... ahha41.jpg

Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... n-st-louis


Is it me but doesn't the Boeing's proposal for the MQ-25 seen in the pictures above, have a wingspan "too large" for an aircraft that's supposed to operate from an Aircraft Carrier?
Offline

usnvo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post24 Jan 2018, 20:29

ricnunes wrote:Is it me but doesn't the Boeing's proposal for the MQ-25 seen in the pictures above, have a wingspan "too large" for an aircraft that's supposed to operate from an Aircraft Carrier?


Given the requirement for give, roughly 15klbs at 500-550nm, it was always going to be a large aircraft. If you assume the individual standing by the jet is roughly 6ft tall, then the wingspan is something near 70ft. That appears to be similar to other notable large carrier aircraft like the F-14 (64ft), A-12 (70ft), A-3 (73ft), or S-3 (68ft).
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post24 Jan 2018, 23:03

usnvo wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Is it me but doesn't the Boeing's proposal for the MQ-25 seen in the pictures above, have a wingspan "too large" for an aircraft that's supposed to operate from an Aircraft Carrier?


Given the requirement for give, roughly 15klbs at 500-550nm, it was always going to be a large aircraft. If you assume the individual standing by the jet is roughly 6ft tall, then the wingspan is something near 70ft. That appears to be similar to other notable large carrier aircraft like the F-14 (64ft), A-12 (70ft), A-3 (73ft), or S-3 (68ft).


CMV-22 (46ft)
C-2, E-2D (81ft)
C-130 (132ft)
:wink:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1317
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Jan 2018, 23:28

OK, it was me then :wink:
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3520
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post24 Jan 2018, 23:28

neptune wrote:C-130 (132ft)
:wink:

I probably watch the C-130 video twice a year just for grins.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 455
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post25 Jan 2018, 01:00

steve2267 wrote:Since stealth or VLO was not a requirement for the MQ-25 contract, I don't understand why Northop Grumman didn't just enter a variant of their MQ-4C Triton. Certainly they should have been able to have enough push, and they'd have the aero efficiency. They could later offer maritime ISR as an upgrade...

SpudmanWP wrote:The requirements for the MQ-25 and MQ-4C are vastly different. One is a mid-altitude refueler (needs cargo space and carrier launch ability) while the 4C is a high-altitude ISR platform with no carrier ability.

As LM has said with the F-35, VLO shaping did not add a lot of complexity or cost to the F-35.


It's also just pure convenience in case NG is asked to produce a strike variant of it. At least, i'd do that.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: botsing and 6 guests