HotshotI am not an expert but I don’t think they are seen in areas where there is no forest, like the great plains. There seems to be hotspots in east Texas, and Arkansas however, but in wooded areas. Other than that, there seems to be hotspots almost everywhere, from Florida to Ohio and Vermont, in the Rockies and along the west coast up to Alaska.
‘Sasquatch’ is the name given to the creature by indian tribes in BC.
Almost every tribe has stories of Bigfoot. They are all familiar with it and continue to see it in some places. For instance I listened to this interview the other day about the Navajo reservation:
There is also an interview of an indian from Montana on Sasquatch chronicles ( around episode 60 ), and it is pretty much the same kind of story.
It is interesting to note that in the interview the Navajo guy had an experience with sasquatches throwing rocks. This is a common behavior of the creature that has been witnesses by a lot of witnesses. Quite often in fact the witnesses say that the rock is way to big to have been thrown by a human.
HotshotI am not an expert but I don’t think they are seen in areas where there is no forest, like the great plains. There seems to be hotspots in east Texas, and Arkansas however, but in wooded areas. Other than that, there seems to be hotspots almost everywhere, from Florida to Ohio and Vermont, in the Rockies and along the west coast up to Alaska.
‘Sasquatch’ is the name given to the creature by indian tribes in BC.
Almost every tribe has stories of Bigfoot. They are all familiar with it and continue to see it in some places. For instance I listened to this interview the other day about the Navajo reservation:
There is also an interview of an indian from Montana on Sasquatch chronicles ( around episode 60 ), and it is pretty much the same kind of story.
It is interesting to note that in the interview the Navajo guy had an experience with sasquatches throwing rocks. This is a common behavior of the creature that has been witnesses by a lot of witnesses. Quite often in fact the witnesses say that the rock is way to big to have been thrown by a human.
HotshotSanem, you would upgrade your F-16 so much that they would look like an F-16 block 70 which would cost a lot. If your goal is to confront a plane like a PAK-FA, it would be very cost effective I think to add 50-66% to the cost and get a stealthy F-35.
However, it might be a good idea to upgrade retired fighters with datalinks and software so they can be used as UCAVs by the stealth planes. The stealth plane would need a very high level of automation, with extensive use of AI with automatic tactics, etc for it to work. 2 F-22s or F-35s could control up to say 8 F-16. It might work, it is all in the software.
The F-16 UCAV would also be used for a2g and could be remote controlled from the ground. The F-16 operators that will transition to the F-35 could spend a bit on their F-16s when they are retired to have that capability to do that. Eventually it might work for the F-18 also, but there is already a QF-16 so it might be easier on the F-16..
HotshotFrom an article a few years ago –
Boeing has unveiled its design concepts for a new strike fighter to replace the US Navy’s (USN’s) F/A-18E/F Super Hornets after 2025 and to succeed the US Air Force’s (USAF’s) F-22 Raptor two or three years later. The ‘sixth-generation’ twin-engine fighter concepts are stealthy, tailless, supercruise-capable and would include optionally manned cockpits, according to Dixie Mays, Boeing’s next-generation air dominance program manager.
Mays said the company began preparing its sixth-generation fighter designs in response to a June 2008 navy request for information for an F/A-XX fighter, including both manned and unmanned options. Since then, the navy has renamed its requirement ‘Next Generation Air Dominance’ (NGAD), indicating an emphasis on the type of air-to-air combat that the USN’s F-14 Tomcat air superiority fighter was designed to achieve.
“We believe right now that, given the overlap in the technology needs, there is a strong desire for common technology development,” said Mays. Aside from affordability, Mays added that a sixth-generation air dominance airframe would likely put an emphasis on increased firepower, which would be carried internally to enhance stealth.
Another important element would likely be reducing or eliminating radar emissions by replacing active systems. For example, in place of an active electronically scanned array radar, the airframe might employ a network of onboard sensors that do not emit as much or that rely on highly secure networks, Mays said.
Finally, he predicted that having the option to fly manned or unmanned would be “another hallmark of the next generation
The designers aren’t foolish, they get detailed threat briefs and future trends as far as things like enemy fighters, IADS and A2AD elements are concerned. That Adm Greenert spoke something that he practically has no control over (he’s gone much before even the AOA concludes) should be read with a pinch of salt. The fighter design the USN picks will be based on the threat..If they can’t afford stealth or performance than in my opinon they will not go down the road of a new start but continue to upgrade the F-35C and the F-18E/F …ADm. Greenert’s statement on stealth, speed etc don’t match the sort of proposals the USN received based on its floated request for information. If the Navy has indeed changed its tune over the last 3-4 years than it almost certainly will go through the upgrade route since its pointless to try to develop something in between the F-18E/F and F-35C in capability when you can invest that money in buying airframes (as opposed to development)
Admiral Greenert reminds me of Admiral Benson.
– Stealth planes to enter in enemy airspace? I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, not a ******* clue..
😀
HotshotI have no intention of playing armchair-designer or trying to guess what designs actually exist inside the labs and design teams vs. what is publicly released for media consumption. Tailless could still be in in favor or it could not..no one knows because what they are seriously looking at now is likely to be a deep secret. The fact that the USAF has pretty much said that stealth will continue to play a big role in the design of future concept, and they have been backed up by folks high up in the decision making process at the various companies working on something pretty much assures that the follow on generation fighters will be stealthier than the current ones. As far as how to get agility, that would depend on what sort of agility demands the USAF puts on these fighters. For now, the USAF has no real idea of what an aircraft will look like. Its easy to talk about it and claim that it should have X , Y and Z in a forum (we have a thread for that and it appears that some of us have it figured out 😉 ) but from a USAFs point of view requirements won’t start appearing in the short term. The prototyping efforts under the AII should shed some light but those projects appear have a similar relationship to the NGAD as the S97/V280 does to the FLV.
If you look at some of the prototyping work that Boeing has done it does point to a tailless configuration and even McD was in deep research into tails designs (with agility) before Boeing acquired them. Both the X-36, and the BOP point to that with the latter apparently also testing out new stealth features. Regardless of wether boeing still favors tailless fighter for stealth and agility the publicly released academic work and designs have pointed to stealth still being an integral feature in their aircraft. The same is true for Lockheed. We know that Boeing and Northrop Grumman have dedicated teams working on a fighter and there will be some serious design teams that are going to be freed up from the LRS-B (if not already) that require some work. The AII is aimed at keeping those folks funded and working on new stuff. The YF22 (the basis for the F-22A) and YF23 were late 80’s designs..The NGAD is expected to operate in the 2030+ time-frame. There is 3+ decades worth of knowledge and classified (and open) research into stealth to incorporate into anything that comes in the post 2030 time-frame.
In short, outside of discussion forums there is no detailed definition of 6th generation. They (AF/Navy labs, Darpa etc) do have a list of technologies and capabilities that need to mature but what shape or form an actual aircraft is going to be required to take (as in requirements), is still some years away from being defined. The LRS-B should shed some light on what the next leap in ‘survivability’ looks like and it would be interesting to see whether that can be applied to a fighter sized aircraft and if so, at what cost, in what time-frame and with what sort of design compromises.
It seems to me they need a small prototype to test their design, possibly a UAV, no need for a full scale prototype. Will all the modern computer assisted engineering systems they have nowadays, it should be easier to design the airframe and it should not cost too much. Once they have tested their new aerodynamic design they know better what to expect with a full scale plane.
HotshotCertainly they will do,why they would do something like dis-inventing the wheel?
A natural evolution of stealth technologies would occur anyway, like it would happen in all other related sector.It would certainly be possible to give a plane a order of magnitude more stealth with good maneuvrability, given that both F-22 and T-50 are actually stealth and extreme maneuvrability capable, i would say that half of the probleM is solved already.
Problem is not about the fact if it would be theoretically possible to reach it , it is about the price in money, but even more in time and in sacrifice in other performances that it will take.Let-say if you get them in a twenty year time and an extra large funding while in the meantime enhancing actual AD radar performances of the same level would only take fifteen and a standard budget , such an effort would be just futile if not even counter productive.
Well, like we were saying before it is not sure that the F/A-XX will be stealthy, the USN is wondering about the need for stealth.
The PAK-FA probably doesn’t have the level of stealth of the F-35 and the F-22 is of the same order of stealth, probably from the front at least, from the other angles the F-35 likely has a higher RCS.
If they want a tailless design, will they have enough maneuvrability? Maybe a thrust vectoring exhaust would help somewhat but is it possible to make a stealthy 2D TV? And TV doesn’t help for the sustained turn rate. But I think STR is less important nowadays so it might not be that bad.
HotshotIf you say so. I doubt that folks in St. Louis, Palmdale or Redondo Beach will agree.
Ok, but a tailless plane wouldn’t be piece of cake to make. They might gain an order of magnitude in particular from the sides indeed.
Maybe if they are allowed 2 engines it can give them more possibilities to make a flat plane. Apparently Boeing’s F/A-XX would have 2 bays in tandem between the engines so the plane can be more flat, so can have less side RCS. But what about the frontal RCS if the engine ducts are don’t have a serpentine shape.
Also if they want the plane to carry relatively large weapons like the JSOW, it would impact the vertical size of the bays, so probably the signature from the sides. That wouldn’t be too bad for a large plane but a large plane would cost too much probably.
HotshotThe problem is how do you give a fighter with an order of magnitude more stealth than the F-35 a good maneuvrability. Either the plane is more triangular for much more stealth and has poor maneuvrability, either you go for a more fighter type design with only an incremental improvement in stealth, but with a decent maneuvrability. The second option needs more jamming capabilities. I don’t know which one would be best in terms of cost effectiveness.
I am kind of baffled that they don’t want at least the level of stealth of the F-35 on the F/A-XX.
HotshotI don’t know it you’ve heard of Dr. Jeff Meldrum, who is a Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology at the University of Idaho. He is a specialist of the anatomy of the foot and has been studying the sasquatch for about 20 years. He has large collection of Bigfoot casts, and he is convinced they come from real animals. His casts come from all over North America, often from remote places, so it is hard to imagine it could be all hoaxes. Also, he and Dr John Bindernagel, who is a wildlife biologist who has been studying Bigfoot for about 30 years, have looked at the question of whether the habitat can sustain such a large animal, and they have come to the conclusion that probably yes.
It is exasperating that Bigfoot research is such a mess. Some people are obvious hoaxers, and they give a very bad reputation to the subject. Also when people see shows like Finding Bigfoot, it understandable that they think it’s not a serious subject. But that’s what happens when you deal with a farfetched subject like that, it will attract all sorts of weirdoes and incompetents. The theories about telepathy, paranormal abilities are also examples of obvious BS.
People really see a creature that is way to big to be a man in a suite. Witnesses often say that it is even hard to describe how big it is. The animals runs also very fast so it is hard to imagine someone with a suite running that fast. Sometimes, the animal is seen by several people, and sometimes one person sees several bigfoots. Sometimes it is seen from close, and the witness sees many details, like the muscles under the hair, the lips moving when it shows its teeth and so forth. It is clear for the witness that it is an animal.
As for remains of a body, the animal is very rare, buch rarer than bears. It is already quite rare to find bear carcasses in the wild, so it is likely extremely rare to find a Bigfoot carcass.
I try to be objective, and I think discounting all the witnesses, the casts, etc, is not really scientific. At least one should really look into it. That being said, I certainly don’t have all the answers and I am not sure it exists, I am just puzzled.
HotshotI don’t know it you’ve heard of Dr. Jeff Meldrum, who is a Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology at the University of Idaho. He is a specialist of the anatomy of the foot and has been studying the sasquatch for about 20 years. He has large collection of Bigfoot casts, and he is convinced they come from real animals. His casts come from all over North America, often from remote places, so it is hard to imagine it could be all hoaxes. Also, he and Dr John Bindernagel, who is a wildlife biologist who has been studying Bigfoot for about 30 years, have looked at the question of whether the habitat can sustain such a large animal, and they have come to the conclusion that probably yes.
It is exasperating that Bigfoot research is such a mess. Some people are obvious hoaxers, and they give a very bad reputation to the subject. Also when people see shows like Finding Bigfoot, it understandable that they think it’s not a serious subject. But that’s what happens when you deal with a farfetched subject like that, it will attract all sorts of weirdoes and incompetents. The theories about telepathy, paranormal abilities are also examples of obvious BS.
People really see a creature that is way to big to be a man in a suite. Witnesses often say that it is even hard to describe how big it is. The animals runs also very fast so it is hard to imagine someone with a suite running that fast. Sometimes, the animal is seen by several people, and sometimes one person sees several bigfoots. Sometimes it is seen from close, and the witness sees many details, like the muscles under the hair, the lips moving when it shows its teeth and so forth. It is clear for the witness that it is an animal.
As for remains of a body, the animal is very rare, buch rarer than bears. It is already quite rare to find bear carcasses in the wild, so it is likely extremely rare to find a Bigfoot carcass.
I try to be objective, and I think discounting all the witnesses, the casts, etc, is not really scientific. At least one should really look into it. That being said, I certainly don’t have all the answers and I am not sure it exists, I am just puzzled.
HotshotNavy’s idea is to have a UCLASS that can set up 24×7 ISR orbits around the carrier. A stealthy drone, able to function in contested environments appears to be Bob Works, and the Congress’s idea which as per most reports on the matter the Navy is resisting. The Navy wants a non-stealthy (or moderate stealth at best) unmanned aircraft with a long loiter and Time On Station. From their recent past we have the N-ATF, A-12, J-UCAS, N-UCAV, UCAS-D etc etc resulting in the Navy moving over to a non-stealthy, not very ‘fast’ payload truck concept to support the F-35C which the Navy likes (except the cost bit). At this rate, Textron should seriously consider getting into the Naval fighter market 😉
A very stealthy UCLASS would be a very good asset to use for ISR after the enemy air force has been destroyed. It could loiter over enemy airspace with impunity to see what the enemy’s doing and to pick up targets at will.
It seems to me either the UCLASS or the F/A-XX should be stealthy, and even more so than the F-35. Anyways it is amazing to see how they disagree on this.
HotshotWith the AETD program having taken Variable Cycle Engines to TRL-6, these engines are a relatively moderate risk investment for propulsion requirements for a 2030+ fighter aircraft. If that is too much of a risk for the Navy to absorb, I seriously doubt they are looking at anything that is significantly better than an F-35C minus its stealth or pretty much an F-18E/F with a bit better performance and the ability to carry directed energy pods.
If that is the current state of thinking than they are better off just canceling the FA-XX and buying a Duper Hornet in the post 2030 time-frame and using the F-35C to extend capability in contested environments with support assets such as a predator based UCLASS.
Yes, I really don’t see the point. Apparently the idea is to use the stealthy F-35s and UCLASS to find targets for these relatively inexpensive non stealthy planes using super fast long range weapons. That’s a pretty big departure from what had been announced a few years ago.
Even if they have a HEL, they still need to approach their targets so they need stealth. and a non stealthy plane wouldn’t survive against enemy fighters. Also the enemy long range SAM launchers would be hard to find and destroy, there is no guarantee they could ever enter the enemy airspace without stealth.
HotshotThe last I checked the USN was initiating a program to get 120-150 F/A-18’s extended from a 6000 hour service life to a 10,000 hour service life which should add about a dozen years to their life. 40 of these aircrafts were upgraded last year., with 50 more this year.
Do you know how much it costs per plane? I heard the canadian F-18s were very expensive to SLEP.
HotshotThe outgoing CNO specifically said that the next generation fighter would rely less on “SPEED” compared to the fighters before it. This points to the service not really wanting an F-22/ATF like performance.
Maybe they say that because they want to be realistic. They want an affordable plane. But I doubt they won’t want an adaptive engine if one is available.
HotshotThe USN has a current demand for 260 F-35C’s (More C’s for the USMC) and @15 a year that would take 15 years post 2020 to get to 260 (after factoring in the buys till FY2020)..The range is 11-18 years depending upon the rate of purchase (20 per year vs 12 per year).
That’s still a long time for the F/A-18Cs! I doubt they will be upgraded with the budget constraints.
Sign In
