US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

M

mack8

Junior Member
CMP said:
"Another example of a defense company interpreting the RFP and building something the military didn't ask for and doesn't want."

"If previous aircraft this complex are considered, it will be completed in 2035 at $30M a pop."

"Oh, and they do everything they are saying with an airframe that looks to be, at most, 1/3 the weight of an F-35. I guess it runs on hot air, because there is certainly no room for fuel."

"Guess you are not an engineer. The most advanced aircraft in the world, the F-35B, can take off vertically, but it carries only a small load and can only fly a couple of hundred miles. That is why F-35B's always have a short runway take off so that they can carry fuel and weapons.

But these folks are so much smarter. They use exactly the same technology (engines, aerodynamics, etc) but can fly 5 time further with a useful load. It's absurd. Only someone with too much money and not enough brains would find that credible. "

"Let’s do the math, shall we? The Valkyrie weighs 5000lbs and has an engine that generates about 4000 lbs of thrust. It requires rocket boosters for TO. It carries about 3000 lbs of fuel and has a range of about 1500 miles. It is very aerodynamic and cruises at a speed of about 500 kts. That means it burns fuel at an extremely efficient rate of 1000 lbs/hr.

The vehicle in the article weighs about 30,000 lbs and uses an F100 engine which generates 33,000 lbs of thrust in full afterburner. It likely carries about 10,000 lbs of fuel with a full combat load. To push a vehicle of this size through the air a F100 will burn fuel at a rate of about 5000 lbs per hour. The vehicle is not shaped for high speed so let’s say it has an efficient cruising speed of 350 kts.

You will burn 2000 lbs of fuel just getting this beast airborne. If you don’t believe me just find out the fuel burn rate of an F100 in full afterburner. That leaves 8000 lbs of fuel for the mission. At 5000 lbs per hr burn rate you have just over 1.5 hrs of flying time at 350 kts.

So your mission range is about 275 nautical miles, assuming you want to get back home.

So, yes, they have suspended the laws of physics and they have sucked you in because you want to believe you can get something for nothing. But, please, if you think I am wrong invest all your money in them."
Click to expand...
XFV-12 would like a word as for as critically flawed aerodynamic/scientific assumptions go. Nevermind other considerents, makes you wonder how will this thing behave in hot and high conditions? The TW margins seem to be uncomfortably low.

At any rate, China should keep an eye on this thing, and maybe even take a shot at the general concept just to have it ready/matured in case it is found working/worthwhile/deployed by the enemy, making sure to avoid the potential weaknesses of this X-Bat thing.
 
00CuriousObserver

00CuriousObserver

Junior Member
Registered Member
Multiple B-21s are undergoing ground tests and being prepared to join the two aircraft now in test flight, and the Northrop Grumman is negotiating with the Air Force about how expanded production for the bomber could be accomplished, president and CEO Kathy Warden said Oct. 21. She also suggested a deal on expanded production could reopen what the company charges for the aircraft.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
00CuriousObserver said:
Multiple B-21s are undergoing ground tests and being prepared to join the two aircraft now in test flight, and the Northrop Grumman is negotiating with the Air Force about how expanded production for the bomber could be accomplished, president and CEO Kathy Warden said Oct. 21. She also suggested a deal on expanded production could reopen what the company charges for the aircraft.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
They build multiple empty shells or they have some real functionality?
 
burritocannon

burritocannon

Junior Member
Registered Member
mack8 said:
XFV-12 would like a word as for as critically flawed aerodynamic/scientific assumptions go. Nevermind other considerents, makes you wonder how will this thing behave in hot and high conditions? The TW margins seem to be uncomfortably low.
Click to expand...
i wouldn't be dismissive of this. ive long wondered why nobody was pushing tailsitters for ucavs because it always seemed to me the natural path.
recall that many of the earliest vtols have been tailsitter types. the speculative triebfluegel, the ryan pogo. the aerodynamic advantages of a tailsitter are immediately obvious.
all succeeding manned vtol designs have hinged on how to achieve vertical lift while keeping the airplane horizontal. the struggle has always been about minimizing the amount of weight devoted to giving the pilot a landing configuration sensible for humans. the harrier did it by moving the engine as far forward as possible, the f-35 did it with the combination of excess thrust from a huge engine combined with a relatively simple lift mechanism, and the yak-38 just simply ate the cost (and suffered terribly in terms of payload capability). the more they departed into the novel and the exotic, the more they failed -- like the xfv-12.
so obviously taking a step back the constraint has been imposed by the existence of the pilot, because we're not good at backing a plane tailfirst, it's uncomfortable to sit in a tailsitter, etc etc. removing the pilot entirely clears the path for the most efficient vtol configuration.

additional thoughts:
-despite tailsitter being the most efficient form of vtol, vtol itself is inevitably less efficient than aerodynamic lift coupled with thrust. a stol capability would be desirable for 99% usecases. vtols already operate as stol whenever possible. on the other hand, maybe this gets worked around with a catapult.
-fuckoff range coupled with vtol seems excessive. it may be an aggressive sales pitch trying to lean into the hysterical fantasy of "we're gonna lose every airbase, but we're going to be able to immediately bounce back with these things." this connects to the idea "nothing else is going to be able to keep up with these xbats, so you better replace the entire airforce with these things." hence the additional promise that these are omnirole. i expect this to get cut down to size by both the military as well as physics.
-2028 isn't gonna make it for america's timeline. and with all american programs, expect delays. i wonder if palmer luckey was jabbing at these guys when he was talking about how his overriding concern was "making it on time for 2027" the other day.
 
bsdnf

bsdnf

Junior Member
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
My "Fake it till you make it" RWR is going off loudly.

Even if we assume its range is genuinely, the air intake design means there is insufficient nose space to accommodate a radar matching the payload (AIM-174 or even just AIM-120), meaning it's still a CCA despite their claims that it can “hunt on its own”. Then we find ourselves back in the predicament of A2/AD, manned aircraft range, air bases, etc. X-BAT essentially amounts to a makeshift solution: “CCA that can take off within the A2/AD zone, but we still need to wait for manned aircraft from outside the area.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top