Hi Matej …I like your work in the secretprojects forum. I just think that the definition of what is unnacceptably evil has been so watered down to a ” if you’re not with us you’re with them” type of kindergarten mentality it is scary. I was an infantry lieutenant fighting, ..ahem..communists at that time so I am no … to use a cheap quote.. :diablo:

I was just kidding. I do this everywhere possible 😉

Glonass? Sure, and soon everybody is going to run out and start buying Tupolev airliners And Galileo isn’t a reality yet. But to be clear, what he’s saying is that GPS gives excellent service and it’s free. Neither Glonass or Galileo is/will be both of those.

Eh, what am I reading?!?!? Comparison:

GPS free freqency can track targets only with radius cca 15 meters. It is transmitting only three frequencies (one free civil and two for US army and NATO). Its one-way system with no ability to communicate with user. Because higher Earth orbit it is not useful in all Earth´s surface. Its not credible, because MoD can turn-off it for public anytime it like.

Galileo can track targets with radius 60 cm, with differencial signal processing its less than 1 cm. Its transmitting 10 signals, that are thanks to 3000 km lower Earth orbit (23 222 km) usable up to 75 degrees geographical width. It is able to receive resecue signals and CONFIRM them. There are also other two-way communication possibilities. Galileo can track subject in emergency situations with radius less than a few meters (today it is at best 5 km). Its able also to check emergency call to prevent fake alerts. Services:

1. Free for general public (position and exact time) with radius 5 m
2. Service for critical emergency situations (for sea/ocean navigation, air and railway navigation) with guaranteed signal. Certified receiver is needed.
3. Two coded signals – you must pay – but you will have 1 cm accuracy
4. Regulated public service – for police, resecue system, firemen, border guard and army

Only 3 and half year and we will have much, much, much, much, much better system than archaic, military owned GPS. GLONASS is nearly as good as Galileo will be, but it still dont have all planned satellites in orbit, is not free and is mainly military owned…

Anyone want to talk about military AIRCRAFT????

About this one?? 😉

B-2 would be a very bad recce platform. Why?
1. Expencive
2. Require special airfields and treating
3. Low speed
4. Low alt
5. Addidional sensors may compromise its main advantage – stealth.

So, what we have? A expencive plane what will be easy shot down by any ancient Mig-21 if spotted? May i remind you, in WW2 there was no radar on planes yet they somehow manged to shot down each other.

If you read my post, there is not ANY MINE valuation if it was good or bad proposal. Just two facts: 1. RB-2 and EB-2 were allready proposed 2. they (both) were evaluated as too costly

I dont know where they are gonna get the money for all this..i mean under air mobility they have the ATT and now this plus the lessons learned report will recommend certain things as well…

Maybe they dont need to find money, because pictures in post no. 1 shows exactly ATT concepts 😉 On the right is original Lockheed Advanced Theater Transport proposal (as competitor to Boeing´s ATT SuperFrog) and on the left is tanker derivate. This means that it was proposed as multimodular aircraft capable of many different missions. However Lockheed MACK/BMACK was also designed with this philosophy, but unfortunatelly I still cant imagine it as gunship platform. Crazy idea.

I am wondering last photo with the model. Is it some fan art or real project? I assume the first – just see the wing – it is used as all moving horizontal tail part!!

Thats new advanced defense system AOF – Active Optical Fake 😀 😀 😀

It’s quiet at work – so I have been playing around with Paintshop Pro…..

This is what I mean……………..

Ken

Nice 🙂 Something like my hypothetical future MiG fighter… Remember that also production MiG 1.42 was planned with that style air intakes.

But I think that the point of MadRat was that you can reduce Su-27 signature by at best some dBsm, but it will be still clearly visible to the radar. So the goals of that modifications should be better fly performance, better view from cockpit, bigger weapons load, ability to take off and land from unprepared fields, etc – not low observability.

100% Tornado, but I am not sure if GR.4 or F3.