XP67_Moonbat
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 January 2008
- Messages
- 2,258
- Reaction score
- 458
This argument is still grasping at straws.
The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is looking at systems for sixth-generation fighters where the laser modules would be distributed throughout the aircraft and the beams routed by fibers through the tight confines of the airframe to a conformal array on the fuselage surface
As it begins building the Army system, Lockheed is studying how the fiber-laser technology can be applied to other requirements. “We are looking at how we could package the system into a weapons module for the Littoral Combat Ship or into a pod for an aircraft, as well as Army tactical vehicles,” he says.
One potential application is AFRL’s planned Self-Protected High-Energy Laser Demonstration (Shield), for which a solicitation is expected shortly. Shield aims to demo an anti-missile self-defense pod for fighters by 2020 and a longer-range, 100-kW system by 2022. The Air Force wants the laser technology for a self-defense pod to be scalable to an offensive weapon that can be carried by larger aircraft, beginning with special-operations gunships.
“The Shield technology level we can do now,” says Afzal. “We would look at modifications to make it more relevant to the Air Force, but it is not a next-generation system.” But the key issue could be maturity of the fiber-laser technology versus other solid-state electric lasers. Army trials of the 60-kW system will take Lockheed’s technology to TRL 6, “arguably TRL 7 depending on how they use the system and if they do tactical engagements,” he says. The race is on.
Sundog said:sferrin said:Sundog said:Also, with regard to JSF, orginally LM and Northrop were awarded contracts to study shaft driven lift fan technology versus tip driven fan technology. Normally, the government would fund such research, put together the findings, and distribute them to the industry and then ask for designs. Instead, the technology demonstration program turned into a production program instead of a research program and when Northrop realized the penalties were too high for tip driven fan technology they switched to the separate lift engine design which wasn't considered part of the program. From my perspective, that isn't competitive design selection, that's rigged from the start. It isn't any different then telling the companies they have to use different engines for their designs.
Why couldn't NG use a shaft driven lift fan? Oh right, because Lockheed invented the thing. : The whole "rigged from the start" nonsense is pretty much tinfoil hat territory.
No, it wasn't invented by L-M. There was plenty of research into them well before the JSF program and the demonstrators and test models were government funded, not privately funded. So, nice try.
sferrin said:Sundog said:sferrin said:Sundog said:Also, with regard to JSF, orginally LM and Northrop were awarded contracts to study shaft driven lift fan technology versus tip driven fan technology. Normally, the government would fund such research, put together the findings, and distribute them to the industry and then ask for designs. Instead, the technology demonstration program turned into a production program instead of a research program and when Northrop realized the penalties were too high for tip driven fan technology they switched to the separate lift engine design which wasn't considered part of the program. From my perspective, that isn't competitive design selection, that's rigged from the start. It isn't any different then telling the companies they have to use different engines for their designs.
Why couldn't NG use a shaft driven lift fan? Oh right, because Lockheed invented the thing. : The whole "rigged from the start" nonsense is pretty much tinfoil hat territory.
No, it wasn't invented by L-M. There was plenty of research into them well before the JSF program and the demonstrators and test models were government funded, not privately funded. So, nice try.
That must be why Lockheed and Bevilaqua got the patent. http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/5209428.html Even that aside there's nothing saying NG HAD to use a tip-driven fan (because their JSF proposal didn't use one). There is no basis in fact for a "rigged" game.
Triton said:F-35B Propulsion Story
Uploaded on Apr 17, 2008
Meet the inventor, Paul Bevilaqua of the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing lift fan propulsion system.
https://youtu.be/w_Iw3Z6Dh8g
Sundog said:sferrin said:Sundog said:sferrin said:Sundog said:Also, with regard to JSF, orginally LM and Northrop were awarded contracts to study shaft driven lift fan technology versus tip driven fan technology. Normally, the government would fund such research, put together the findings, and distribute them to the industry and then ask for designs. Instead, the technology demonstration program turned into a production program instead of a research program and when Northrop realized the penalties were too high for tip driven fan technology they switched to the separate lift engine design which wasn't considered part of the program. From my perspective, that isn't competitive design selection, that's rigged from the start. It isn't any different then telling the companies they have to use different engines for their designs.
Why couldn't NG use a shaft driven lift fan? Oh right, because Lockheed invented the thing. : The whole "rigged from the start" nonsense is pretty much tinfoil hat territory.
No, it wasn't invented by L-M. There was plenty of research into them well before the JSF program and the demonstrators and test models were government funded, not privately funded. So, nice try.
That must be why Lockheed and Bevilaqua got the patent. http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/5209428.html Even that aside there's nothing saying NG HAD to use a tip-driven fan (because their JSF proposal didn't use one). There is no basis in fact for a "rigged" game.
Actually the patent doesn't really mean anything, based on what we were arguing, as another company could develop it's own shaft driven system.
sferrin said:IIRC neither the Mirage IIIV or Yak-41 did short takeoffs. (There's no physical reason they couldn't, I just don't recall them ever doing it with them.)
galgot said:sferrin said:IIRC neither the Mirage IIIV or Yak-41 did short takeoffs. (There's no physical reason they couldn't, I just don't recall them ever doing it with them.)
Here at 1:00 the Balzac V make a STO :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvv6PZtDaLg
But the Balzac V was subsonic… true didn't found any vids of the Mirage IIIV doing it, but don't see why it couldn't.
Anyway all these are prototypes.
AeroFranz said:Marketing BS. Both types mentioned above could have done it as well, albeit with a very limited supersonic segment, is my guess.
galgot said:Mirage IIIV still holds the record for the fastest VTOL, Mach 2.04 .
sferrin said:AeroFranz said:Marketing BS. Both types mentioned above could have done it as well, albeit with a very limited supersonic segment, is my guess.
Did somebody say they couldn't have?
AeroFranz said:sferrin said:AeroFranz said:Marketing BS. Both types mentioned above could have done it as well, albeit with a very limited supersonic segment, is my guess.
Did somebody say they couldn't have?
Nope. I take issue with marketing people making a big deal about it, considering there was no reason it couldn't have been done fifty years ago, other than it's an irrelevant stunt. The very vast majority of the public has limited knowledge of relatively obscure VTOL history and is likely to believe it's a breakthrough. It's not.
I don't see it there. -SPflateric said:you will not believe it - its from the LM site
flateric said:you will not believe it - its from the LM site
Steve Pace said:I don't see it there. -SPflateric said:you will not believe it - its from the LM site
mz said:flateric said:you will not believe it - its from the LM site
The wing can't be all triangular, has to be a little bit lambda - otherwise it'd be quite close to F-23 shape...
kagemusha said:Propulsion Integration for Future Air Dominance
https://evt.grc.nasa.gov/swbli-2015/files/1.1-SPIRIT_for_SBLI_Meeting_14Apr15.pptx