Looks like our boys saw something cool out there

I have a bit of an off topic question regarding the flight performance off these high end UAV's, specifically what angle of attack/turn rate(hope that's the right term, basically how quickly and at what angles can they change direction) are they capable of without needing to factor in G-force/pilot stress issues?
I've seen it hinted at that they are insanely manoeuvrable but can't really see it just looking at pics or available videos.
Thanks for any insight, its something I've been pondering for awhile after seeing odd lights one night doing some crazy manoeuvres that would've crushed a pilot into a 12inch square blob( unless there really are those mythical "mass/density reduction systems" in existence and I realise that kinda info isnt gonna be revealed any time soon).

a reply to: Osirisvset
A flying wing design cant be supermaneuverable, unmanned or not. Nor is it a relevant or desired capability. With the types of vehicles discussed in this thread you design for extremely low RCS, high altitudes and endurance.

Other vehicles are optimized for other parameters. Obviously you can build a supermaneuverable UAV with flight characteristic exceeding that of a manned platform, with or without **anti gravity** tech.

a reply to: Osirisvset

What would be the point? Install 360° sensors instead and use missiles to go after targets.

With lasers coming into play in the near future, the whole super-maneuverability thing will become pointless anyway.

a reply to: moebius

In a modern dogfight super-maneuverability is already kinda irrelevant. No point in bleeding all your energy to flip around and kill one guy only for his wingman to waste you

a reply to: moebius

A B-21 sized flying wing with long-range A2A armament (think: meteors or air-launched standards) for long-range engagements as well as a 360° radar/irst/lidar suite, an AEGIS-style fire control setup, and a pair of launchers mounted dorsally and ventrally carrying modernized pye wacket-type 360° disc-missiles for WVR combat, and a pair of directed-energy anti missile weapons would be an amazing 6th gen aircraft, if only because of all the salty tears you'd see from Russia/China at the revelation of an aircraft with the maneuverability of a 737 that could kill multiple F-22's in a dogfight simultaneously.

A couple of (hopefully easy) questions.
What is the sensitivity of the scale calcs for this distance and camera - specifically with the blur, if you move your mark one pixel, are we talking one foot, 10 feet, etc in actual size?

It seems the reference size is the ground power station that is common at AF sites. If we are talking greyish/blackish craft, why wouldn’t they potentially have a new ground power source they are testing - even by coincidence and not required for this craft?
Thanks, always a pleasure lurking here!
Phil

a reply to: phansett

They tend to use the same power units for commonality, and ease of maintenance on them. That way if the aircraft has to make an unexpected stop somewhere, they can still plug power in and don't have to fly a unit in specifically for them.

a reply to: Barnalby

We ace combat now.

But actually I really wonder what air combat will look like when we have the ability to use DE weapons to shoot down incoming missiles. Brings up Hammer's Slammers type images to me.

a reply to: Barnalby

I know the technology is different but didn't we try the heavily defended bomber concept in WWII and it didn't work out so well?

As long as we're talking missiles and Pye Wacket I think you'll need escort fighters but once directed energy weapons become a thing that'll change the equation. A pew-pew shooting bomber would rule the skies until someone figured out a super fast swarm to overwhelm it, or something like a flak-shotgun-missile that can deploy 1000's of projectiles in the path of the SuperMega Flying Fortress.

a reply to: PhantomTwo

This wouldn't be the same thing. That was bombers defending themselves, this is a sensor/ shooter setup. You put aircraft with long range missiles that can stay back in less defended airspace, and send in F-22s and F-35s target hunting. Your missile truck lobs missiles at the targets they find.

originally posted by: mightmight
a reply to: Osirisvset
A flying wing design cant be supermaneuverable, unmanned or not. Nor is it a relevant or desired capability. With the types of vehicles discussed in this thread you design for extremely low RCS, high altitudes and endurance.

Other vehicles are optimized for other parameters. Obviously you can build a supermaneuverable UAV with flight characteristic exceeding that of a manned platform, with or without **anti gravity** tech.

You sure about that?

fluidic thrust vectoring of low observable aircraft

Control of a thrust-vectored flying wing: a receding
horizon]LPV approach

Integrated flight/thrust vectoring control for jet-powered unmanned aerial vehicles with ACHEON propulsion

Hey Zaph, Samm and Fred, awesome job on getting some very cool photos.

Regarding what it is, I'm not really sure either. The proportions seem wrong for a B-2 but we have all seen similar photos in the past where camera angles and wishful thinking turned F-117's into wild goose chases.

I don't see a DOD censor letting something like a photo of an YB-21 out into the wild ( and if its not a B-2, its certainly something special), but government censors have slipped up before.

Exercising everyone's favorite logical criteria, Occam's razer, combined with the sighting location being in the open at Edwards its probably something "mundane" ( LOL B-2 and mundane )

Regardless, awesome stuff.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The other issue is accuracy. In WWII, the only "fire control system" a B-17 had was whichever poor 18 year old kid happened to be small enough to stuff into the ball or tail turret, tracking German fighters pulling 400+ mph with little more than a steel gunsight while firing .30 or .50 machineguns with little to no earpro.

Nowadays, we're talking conformal AESAs that can track multiple moving targets with the kind of precision that was reserved for strategic ballistic missile warning radars and naval anti-aircraft suites just a couple decades ago, along with the insanely maneuverable high-off boresight missiles that we have today that can turn and maneuver like a 2000+ mph Extra 300, and that's not counting the major advances in compact directed-energy defense systems in the last 5 years.

We're quickly entering an era in which Macross-style insane missile+laser swarms and such will no longer be science fiction, and I think it will completely rewrite what we think of what an air superiority craft should look like and behave. That is, until someone invents IRL minovsky particles to neutralize all of those missiles and target acquisition/fire control systems.

a reply to: Barnalby

The Pointer Tracker Systems (PTS) on lasers are insane. They have been for 20 years now. When they get a lock, the target is not getting away. The radar merely cues them: the PTS use very basic image recognition to do the rest.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: phansett

They tend to use the same power units for commonality, and ease of maintenance on them. That way if the aircraft has to make an unexpected stop somewhere, they can still plug power in and don't have to fly a unit in specifically for them.

Speaking of ground carts, did you happen to read this comment on your photos over at the theaviationist.com?

chris p moore • a day ago

The comparison to the Essex apu would only work if they we're in the same plane of alignment which they are not. It's obvious it is some distance closer to the shooter. The aircraft is back and at an angle.

He has a point, however would the APU cart sitting say 50 feet closer to the observer in the foreground account for the roughly 30% variance between the size calculations of the object in the photo and the known wingspan and height B-2?

On a side note regarding comments, things like this sure can bring the a**holes out of the woodwork, sheesh tough crowd

a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Power units don't sit 50 feet away from the aircraft. They're maybe 10 feet away at their farthest. You can't move the power unit too far away from the aircraft and still have the power cable reach it.

If its not the Rq180 ( I thought it was like a mini B2 but with muuuuuch longer wings) or an odd shot B2 could it be Amarillo or Kansas platform? Both are flying wings,smaller than the B2.

a reply to: Blackfinger

Those were likely tech demonstrators. The dimensions seem to be pretty far off with these but that's just my .02

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Power units don't sit 50 feet away from the aircraft. They're maybe 10 feet away at their farthest. You can't move the power unit too far away from the aircraft and still have the power cable reach it.

So, Zaph, straight up, what do YOU think? B-2, B-21, RQ-180, or?

a reply to: SonofaSkunk

I don't know. I can see the arguments for all three, and there was a B-2 on base at the time.