Article

2006-01-17 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-01-17 09:29|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 (cough)Army Air Corps(cough)

Posted by Slavilet Sleamp2798 2006-01-17 09:58|| 2006-01-17 09:58|| Front Page Top

#2 Will they be able to do an arclight like the BUFFs?

Posted by Eason Jordan. 2006-01-17 10:04|| 2006-01-17 10:04|| Front Page Top

#3 Brig. Gen. Billy Mitchell is smiling in his perch in heaven.

Posted by The Angry Fliegerabwehrkanonen 2006-01-17 10:11|| http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]">[http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com] 2006-01-17 10:11|| Front Page Top

#4 Without pilots, all sorts of weird possibilities come to mind about heavy bombers. For example, a B-52 was notorious for using almost half its fuel just to get off the ground. So if there's no rush for a heavy bomber launch, why not hoist it up with a dirigible? That is, lift it high up, then start its engines, and it flies away, at altitude, on its own power.

Sounds silly, I know, until you calculate out the greater range before it needs refueling. Right now, bombers are restricted in their use by the availability of refueling aircraft in the vicintity. So maybe it isn't such a ludicrous idea after all.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-17 11:34|| 2006-01-17 11:34|| Front Page Top

#5 The X45 program started out, two years ago, as a DARPA research project. But last Fall, it was taken from DARPA and given to the air force, with orders to move as quickly as possible. At that time, the plan was to build the X45C version and get it through all the tests needed to certify it for combat. At the time, it was thought another four years would be needed to do that. Now, no one is sure it will take that long.

Good move getting it out of DARPA. Bad move not setting a schedule or timeline i.e., orders to move as quickly as possible. I can hear blue-suiter chuckles and yawns from the "back 9."

Posted by Besoeker 2006-01-17 12:17|| 2006-01-17 12:17|| Front Page Top

#6 I think the pilots should embrace UAV's in an air to air role, as a supplement. Without the life support systems, etc, the UAV's are a lot cheaper, therefore they could be allotted say, two air to air capable UAV's. Send them in first, let the bad guys use up their missiles and break their formations, then tallyho! Almost none of our fighters engage in ONLY air to air missions, so this would let the manned aircraft preserve missiles and fuel to head to the kind of targets (say an office complex in a built up area) that require human judgement on the spot. One question though, for the geeks, do we have enough satellite bandwidth available to support a whole bunch of these? Seems I recall some trouble with that during the late unpleasantness in Iraq.

Posted by colin macdougall">colin macdougall 2006-01-17 13:20|| 2006-01-17 13:20|| Front Page Top

#7 The Army is already in the process of moving operational control/flying of tactical UAVs to Aviation branch from Military Intel.

There will be plenty of UAVs to go around, some armed, some not, some tactical some (like Global Hawk) for longer-mission surveillance.

Posted by lotp 2006-01-17 13:31|| 2006-01-17 13:31|| Front Page Top

#8 So if there's no rush for a heavy bomber launch, why not hoist it up with a dirigible? That is, lift it high up, then start its engines, and it flies away, at altitude, on its own power.

It is speed who keeps a plane flying. Your bomber would be at zero speed and it would immediately go unto a vertical dive, possibly in a spinning vertical dive. It would be tricky to regain control with a fighter, impossible in a bomber who are quite simply not designed for taking the required Gs for trasiting to horizontal flight before hitting ground. Notice that the above assumes the plane is going down nose first. Chances are high it would go on a flat spin or in a tail first dive and then even an F16 would crash

Posted by t zero">t zero 2006-01-17 13:36|| 2006-01-17 13:36|| Front Page Top

#9 Also consider the size of the dirigible. Likely would need to be roughly 29 times the size of the Hindenburg. That number is off the top of my head, but it feels right.

Posted by 6 2006-01-17 14:15|| 2006-01-17 14:15|| Front Page Top

#10 While dirigibles might not provide optimum static launch characteristics, catapults certainly could. Given reinforced airframes and high-G hardened avionics, our new generation of electromagnetic catapults could slingshot these puppies into the air at accelerations that would make most pilots black out. With the catapult doing most of the heavy lifting, critical jet fuel is saved and deployment happens even more quickly. I smell a major win-win.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-17 14:19|| 2006-01-17 14:19|| Front Page Top

#11 t zero and zenster: both good points. The design and use of aircraft without pilots really opens up the imagination. So much more is possible. Planes with almost ballistic missile trajectories. Very small, very fast, very maneuverable.

But since most flying is done for logistics rather than combat, imagine also a drone, much like a Huey in size/cargo, that could perform similar missions. Something similar to a Jolly Green Giant, for bus-sized cargoes, etc.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-17 15:19|| 2006-01-17 15:19|| Front Page Top

#12 Well, there's the SkyTote prototype in development and test - more recent comments on this family of UAVs here.

And this student paper describes the tradeoffs one might make re: certain system elements for cargo UAVs.

LOTS is going on in this field. ;-)

Posted by lotp 2006-01-17 15:32|| 2006-01-17 15:32|| Front Page Top

#13 Although the original purpose of the UAV bomber (i.e., softening up inbound anti-aircraft defenses) is laudable, one also needs to consider the use of hypersonic missiles that will be able to address global targets within a few hours. While not able to loiter, their cost of assembly and operation is significantly less.

I especially like the idea of a bunker busting conventional warhead impacting at several times the speed of sound. Such a missile should be able to burrow quite a distance, as in Iranian underground facilities.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-17 16:16|| 2006-01-17 16:16|| Front Page Top

#14 I'd prefer a drone with the speed of an SR-71 with an ability to hover like a huey and at the same time be a fierce moot court competitor.

Posted by 6 2006-01-17 17:13|| 2006-01-17 17:13|| Front Page Top

#15 It might be far more practical to have launched sub-orbital vehicles to deploy "space based weapons", than to have orbital platforms to do so.

The idea being that from a sub-orbital altitude, they would first maneuver into a very steep attitude, then use their engines to rapidly descend towards the target area. Then, with minor attitude adjustments, they could aim at multiple targets and fire solid projectiles with a rail gun. This would get the projectiles up to speed while reducing atmospheric friction on them, so less would burn off before impact.

Instead of attempting deep penetration with the "rods of god", many projectiles could be used like a gigantic cluster bomb over a wide area, resulting in something like a dense meteorite shower of grapefruit sized objects obliterating most targets over perhaps a ten square mile area.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-17 18:59|| 2006-01-17 18:59|| Front Page Top

#16 Rail guns are good.

A Los Alamos scientist described using a rail gun to move a cannonball sized chunk of ferrous metal at speeds that "made it seem to simply rematerialize at the other side of the room."

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-17 19:08|| 2006-01-17 19:08|| Front Page Top

#17 Instead of attempting deep penetration with the "rods of god", many projectiles could be used like a gigantic cluster bomb over a wide area, resulting in something like a dense meteorite shower of grapefruit sized objects obliterating most targets over perhaps a ten square mile area.

♪ make those grapefruits robotic and I think you're on to somrthing Moose. ♪

Â»;-)

Posted by Red Dog 2006-01-17 19:17|| 2006-01-17 19:17|| Front Page Top

#18 Zenster, something along these lines?

Posted by lotp 2006-01-17 21:50|| 2006-01-17 21:50|| Front Page Top

23:47 Shieldwolf
23:32 Shieldwolf
23:30 anymouse
23:28 DMFD
23:26 DMFD
23:19 Mick Jagger
23:00 trailing wife
22:59 trailing wife
22:52 Alaska Paul
22:15 Phuck Snereger9321
22:11 gromgoru
22:11 CaziFarkus
22:08 CaziFarkus
21:50 lotp
21:46 Anonymoose
21:20 jpal
21:14 mhw
21:06 Zenster
21:02 ex-lib
21:01 twobyfour
21:00 whitecollar redneck
20:58 ex-lib
20:55 ex-lib
20:53 Claviter Omuque3310