renegadeleader1 Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Looks like Jane's is claiming it's not a Blackhawk: http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065929508&channel=defence I'm still leaning towards the "Silenthawk" hypothosis, but you never know... If anything this explains why the RAH-66 Commanche cost 6 times what it was supposed to. The money went to creating a stealth utility chopper.
Knight26 Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Looks like Jane's is claiming it's not a Blackhawk: http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065929508&channel=defence I'm still leaning towards the "Silenthawk" hypothosis, but you never know... My DO and I have been looking at the pictures and agree with the silenthawk hypothesis. The tail looks clearly like a LO version of the standard blackhawk tail, plus the rotor head is straight off of an MH-60, which he used to fly so he called that out quickly.
Knight26 Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Have any of you guys seen the comic Titanium Rain? Based about 20 years in the future after the F-35 is in the full swing of things. I met one of the creators at Wondercon this year and kind of forgot about the whole thing until I was cleaning and found the card. Not loving it, they obviously did no homework on the F-35. They should have just made up a whole new plane. Just from looking it over quickyl I saw the following errors on the F-35 like a lighthouse beacon: FSW on the F-35, no, very bad. Pilot's helmet, completely wrong. HDD, again completely wrong. Weapons bay doors, do I need to explain how wrong these are?
David Hingtgen Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Canards! (also, a good illustration of why the Gripen has a short landing run--massive airbrakes)
Bowen Posted May 7, 2011 Posted May 7, 2011 Canards! (also, a good illustration of why the Gripen has a short landing run--massive airbrakes) Gotta love Tiger Meet
Chewie Posted May 7, 2011 Posted May 7, 2011 (edited) Not loving it, they obviously did no homework on the F-35. They should have just made up a whole new plane. Just from looking it over quickyl I saw the following errors on the F-35 like a lighthouse beacon: FSW on the F-35, no, very bad. Pilot's helmet, completely wrong. HDD, again completely wrong. Weapons bay doors, do I need to explain how wrong these are? Not going to claim to know anything more than anyone else when it comes to aircraft but how does a comic based 20 years in the future get it wrong? We can't really know what would or wouldn't work, can we? Let's assume I don't know why all these things are bad or wrong. Edited May 7, 2011 by Chewie
GRAND CANNON Posted May 7, 2011 Posted May 7, 2011 (edited) If anything this explains why the RAH-66 Commanche cost 6 times what it was supposed to. The money went to creating a stealth utility chopper. Edited May 7, 2011 by GRAND CANNON
Zentrandude Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Is that the supposed stealth helo that crashed in the bin laden raid? Don't think they will down the F-22 that long for the OBOGs messing up. those systems are very simple and also easily repairable anyways.
GRAND CANNON Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 (edited) Source: "David Cenciotti, the brain behind the sketch, has serious credentials: he’s a former member of the Italian air force, current private pilot, computer engineer, and journalist. With the help of Ugo Crisponi, an artist at Aviation Graphic. It’s still a drawing, of course, but here it’s easier to appreciate the strange tail rotor, and the sleek, streamlined stealth chassis—particularly compared to the standard Black Hawk (underneath at the image)." Seems plausible and not too far-fetched. Edited May 8, 2011 by GRAND CANNON
hobbes221 Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 S-76 to S-75 ACAP That really works if you think about it. Even if the helo in question is not a true H-60 airframe modded but a new airframe altogether, it would help from a logistics point of view to use the H-60 avionics, powerplant, drive train, rotor heads and the like. They are already in the system, you know they work, have people that are already trained to work on them and from the super secret ninja view - there are fewer special parts to design, order, stock and forward to the operational area. Example would be to tuck one or two into a C-5/C-17 and go. How much more gear would you need to bring? Any area where U.S. troops are deployed are bound to have one or more variant of the H-60 around. Every branch uses at least one type of H-60.
renegadeleader1 Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Now that is an interesting picture. Still if this is supposed to be a steatlh chopper I doubt very much it has all those windows, or a minigunner hanging out the side. I wouldn't be surprised if it has WWII bomb bay style ventral doors for the air assault role either. Nose should be a bit more angular too. Even if its a heavily modified UH-60 it really doesn't surprise me we have something like it. The F-117 was flying as early as 1981 back when the F-16 Fighting Falcon(viper) was considered state of the art, and no one knew a thing about the F-117 untill the gulf war a little over 10 years later. Now all anyone talks about is the F-22 or F-35 as the futuristic state of the art. It really makes you wonder what super advanced airframe is already up and running thats better than them. On a lighter note the drawing does kinda remind me of Airwolf.
Coota0 Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 I wouldn't be surprised if it has WWII bomb bay style ventral doors for the air assault role either. That would really limit you for convetinal landing assaults and we've been fast roping and airborne insertions out the side doors for years now, why change something that works. Cutting a huge hole in the floor for an extra door, would require rerouting systems that go through that area and mean having to reinforce the aircraft somewhere else, I assume you're suggesting losing the side doors to do this.
renegadeleader1 Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 That would really limit you for convetinal landing assaults and we've been fast roping and airborne insertions out the side doors for years now, why change something that works. Cutting a huge hole in the floor for an extra door, would require rerouting systems that go through that area and mean having to reinforce the aircraft somewhere else, I assume you're suggesting losing the side doors to do this. Well thats the thing, there is nothing "conventional" about a stealth helicopter or the missions it would undertake. Eliminating the side doors and making the sides of the aircraft more angular would help to cut down on its radar cross section. Its just a guess on my part. Then again it could be outfitted with a hydraulic door on the side similar to the F-22 or RAH-66 weapons bays. Thats probably more likely than the bomb bay to be honest. Still about the whole cutting the floor away and rerouting part, we still don't know 100% what it is. It could be a whole new chooper, a heavily modified UH-60, or even a UH-60 variant built from the ground up to be what it is. whatever it is I doubt that there are more than 3 or 4 in existance
RFT Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 I'd like that picture more if they weren't flying to the scrapyard.
F-ZeroOne Posted May 10, 2011 Posted May 10, 2011 Theres a rumour that Libya has forced a little bit of a re-think and a few Harriers (the number I've seen mooted is about twenty) might be kept around "just in case". However, as far as I'm aware, so far its just press speculation. A WAH-64 Apache flew over where I work today. Its always slightly un-nerving seeing one of those banking overhead, they really do look like giant alien predatory dragonflies.
David Hingtgen Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 I think it's more proper to write it as "Flanker-D". With a hyphen.
anime52k8 Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Finally. Back in '07~'08 I would have killed for a good Su-33 kit (or any canard carrying Flanker variant), but at this point I'd much rather have an SU-35BM. also I would have liked it better in 1/48
Ghost Train Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 The idolMaster version from Ace Combat has been out for a while:
raptormesh Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 Great F-22 take off if you haven't seen it from behind. Seventy k lbs of thrust at work, almost like a YF-21 taking off. Imagine what our valks could do with the thrust that they have.
Chewie Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) This was pretty cool. Repost from Gizmodo. At 1:38, is that an Airbus? A320? Edited May 20, 2011 by Chewie
David Hingtgen Posted May 20, 2011 Posted May 20, 2011 That's an A330, a wholly different and much larger plane than the 320. The 330 and 340 are closely related. (share about 90% of their parts). Raptormesh--the 35K thrust figure of the F119 wasn't widely believed when it first came out, and for the past couple years the USAF will officially say/admit the F-22's engines are 39K thrust. Many (including me) think even that's too low, compared to the F-35's engine. So really it's at least 78K total, and likely 80K or even more.
Ghost Train Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 LOLOL Stealth helicopter model kit available soon rofl. hobbysearch
David Hingtgen Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 It's not often we see a cool, new, military HELICOPTER demo scheme: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Netherlands---Air/Boeing-AH-64D-Apache/1932269/L/
raptormesh Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 It's not often we see a cool, new, military HELICOPTER demo scheme: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Netherlands---Air/Boeing-AH-64D-Apache/1932269/L/ Thanks David, that's a pretty bird.
renegadeleader1 Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 LOLOL Stealth helicopter model kit available soon rofl. hobbysearch I am so putting WWII style bomb bay doors on that thing!
David Hingtgen Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 One fewer B-17 in the world: In happier times:
Beltane70 Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 It's really sad to see this plane meet this fate. Thankfully, none of the crew were seriously injured.
David Hingtgen Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Today was a good day. (airplane-wise, not lighting and photography-wise)
PetarB Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Lucky fellow! I haven't been to an airshow since I was at university. As for the 'Stealth' Copter... I love Dragon's illustration on that box - it even has Bin Laden's compound with a couple of lights on!
electric indigo Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 New PAK FA render from the absurdly brilliant guys at precise3dmodeling
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Does this have any merit? Something about the photo reminds me of a scale model and there seems to be pretty rough rivetting and stuff. http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/stealth-jh-7-fighter-china-is-developing-another-fifth-generation-fighter.html Edited June 22, 2011 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
David Hingtgen Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Absolutely none. It's a drawing that people are passing off as a poorly-lit photo.
Recommended Posts