Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Bird of Prey Stealth Fighter
An anonymous submitter writes: "Revealed: Boeings new secret stealth bat-plane! For years stealthchasers (those guys who sneak around secret USAF test bases in search of secret aircraft) knew the Bird Of Prey existed. They knew it was being tested over the secluded Nellis Air Force Base ranges in Nevada. They knew what hangar it was being secreted away in at Nellis (on the northeast corner) and they even managed to obtain a squadron patch depicting the aircraft itself!... but the government still denied its existance until today. At a ceremony at Boeing's St Louis plant their super-secret Bird Of Prey batplane was revealed today for the world to see and marvel at. You can view exclusive photos of it at popsci.com and projectblack.net."
to revinvent themselves. Notice the PopSci article makes more of statement about prototype development and not the physical aircraft itself which it built with speed and at reduced cost. The Phantom Works is Boeing's answer to Lockheed's Skunk Works which was made famous by the SR-71 which it produced went from drawing boarding to aircraft (and subsquently speed records) in 18 months.
With Boeing losing so much ground in the commerical markets to Airbus it really needs to prove to the USAF and the military at large that is a prime contender.
Quite frankly this is an expensive PR campaign whose prime audience is not the commerical markets, but the U.S. and NATO military.
I have to go out to Nellis for work occasionally. Last time I was there they had two B-2 Stealth Bombers parked near the runway. Seeing one of those things from the back, I am convinced they are the cause of 95% of saucer-shaped ufo sightings in the last 20 years.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
In case you are unaware, when the first proposals were made by the engineer responsible for the B2 stealth bomber, everyone said "Theres no damn way that thing is leaving the ground. That thing can't fly." I have to say, the Bird of Prey looks even more so like this. I am curious as to how it generates the lift required with such small wings. Usually, if you look at any aircraft, the wings are atleast 1/3rd - 2/3rds of the entire size of the craft (size comparison wise). The wings are tiny, along with the fact that they are nothing like traditional wings with the sharp angle mid-wing. You could say its wide, which helps, but I do not think this is the case as the bottom of the fuselage, according to those pictures, does not seem to have any characteristics required to generate lift. I think I speak for us all when I say seeing a video of this thing in action would be pretty impressive, and no doubt interesting. Due to the more narrow design, it looks as if its manuevering capabilities are much greater than that of the B2, which made VERY wide turns. Anyone have links to further details?
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
stealthchasers (those guys who sneak around secret USAF test bases in search of secret aircraft)
During the cold war they would have been known as spies. However, in the present they are classified as terrorists.
Sneaking around secret USAF test bases in search of secret aircraft is a great way to have your citizenship status abruptly changed to "Enemy combatant", enjoying all of the privilleges that such a title brings.
Wow, what great timing, what with Bush about to wage war on Iraq. Now our pilots should be just a little bit safer from all those rogue nations out there with super-advanced, high-tech, long-range, radar-guided missiles that this jet can now avoid.
Oh, wait a sec, that's right ... the US is the only nation who can afford the kinds of missiles that this jet can avoid. So what was the point of this trillion-dollar boondoggle again?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
god that thing is cool looking.
Automotive industry take note. If you want to sell shitloads of cars - make em look as cool as this thing.
Thats what i want my moller car to look like.
when we "invaded" panama during the regan years (i use scare quotes 'cause we were already there... hard to invade a country you're already basically occupying), that was the first time the public was made aware of the F-117.
well, wouldntcha know it, the government let slip that it's been keeping a new jet secret -- just in time for another unnecessary war against another dictator it imposed and now sees fit to blow up!
way to parade the forces to the proles to get us to rally around the flag, bushie!
Just raise the taxes on crack.
Boeing recently lost the bid for the Joint Strike Fighter. The JSF is also stealthy multi-purpouse fighter, which after extensive testing and evaluation is now being ordered in large quantities from Lockheed Martin.
I seriously doubt that this thing will produced in any significant quantities - the decision for fighter spending has already been made. It might, however, be important from a development point of view - testing new technologies and so on.
Tor
It may be more intended as a spy-plane than as a fighter. A better guess might be a bomber. With today's weaponry, it doesn't take a bomb of huge size to make a large crater.
The name "bird of prey" indicates it to be a hunt-and-destroy type aircraft as well.
A last thought is, of course, that perhaps it has something really cool like a "frickin laser beam", or perhaps some photon torpedos?
Side note: How many people who make these things grew up having a lower sense of limits because of star-trek etc. If one day we have an actual cloaking device and warp drive, it will probably be made by trekkies or ex-trekkies.
America's most powerful weapon.
You are, of course, referring to the DaisyCutter?
No, it's the K10 b*tchslapper - killfrog.com
I've heard that it can easily be made obsolete by using lower frequency radar, or heat-sensitive infrared radar systems. In any case, the enemy need only make a comparatively tiny investment in radar to render any form of stealth techology useless.
Yeah, I have heard that too. But I am quite skeptical, because neither in Kuwait, former Yugoslavia nor in Afghanistan were such supposedly simple and inexpensive technologies used by America's enemies.
Tor
Well, I guess we won't know until they retire the Aurora design. The US gov wouldn't allow them to make it public unless you have the ideal circumstances like this Bird of Prey:
1. Design itself is retired.
2. No special technology on display (the bird of prey doesn't even have a computer and uses a bussines jet engine).
3. Only early prototypes (the bird of prey is a minimalistic design).
So I wouldn't expect an early announcement of the existence of a spaceplane...
Remember, this plane is a prototype and to some extent a proof-of-concept plane. Now that the concept has been proved and Boeing has assured its backers that the damn thing can fly at all, they can start building a version with munitions bays (you're right, there's no way they are going to carry missiles on the outside, and the F-117 carries stuff internally). I expect the same principles used to hide the landing gear doors would work on missile bay doors too.
Also remember, as others have pointed out, the fact that we even know about this plane proves that it's quite out-of-date. God only knows what's in that hangar in Area 51 today.
You mean the U2... in the 60s... which wasn't necessarily stealth, but simply because it could fly higher than any missile at that time (or at least they thought... until Russia shot one down!)
Also, regarding your post in general, it's kind of an ignorant statement. Your opinion is a popular one. Why do we need to continue spending? Why waste the money? There is no war out there to fight anymore!
WRONG, there is always a war to fight. Spending money on technology NOW prevents wars in the future. Spending money is what caused the USSR to fall (they ran out of money quicker than we did). Smart weapons must be delivered somehow. You can not launch a "smart weapon" from the U.S. and expect it to hit Baghdad. You need to have a platform to launch it from.
In the specific case of the "Bird of Prey", it is a concept only... says so in the Popular Science article. Concepts are used all the time from our friends in Detroit (ever been to a big auto show) to CPU manufacturers. Concepts are to prove something can be done... which then lead into more useful items later on.
As with much military technology, lessons learned from this concept vehicle could possibly make it into everyday life.
Last time I was there they had two B-2 Stealth Bombers parked near the runway. Seeing one of those things from the back, I am convinced they are the cause of 95% of saucer-shaped ufo sightings in the last 20 years.
Actually the cause of 95% of UFO sighthings is that people are fucking idiots.
GMD
watch this
Because it didn't make national media for some reason or other, so from most of us, an excellent percentage, it was still a secret.
The gov't'wouldn't care if an average citizen knew what they were working on. For example, it would be no strategic disadvantage for me to know, for example, the existence of a hypersonic ramjet bomber. However, it would be bad if say, North Korea had this knowledge. They would be able to devise defensive measures against this craft.
Secrecy is not to keep shit secret from U.S. citizens. It's to keep it secret from foreign intelligence.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
It looks like just about the damn sweetest flying thing I've ever seen,
:-b
I think it's ugly as all hell.
- The test pilots will be highly skilled (you want the best on this kind of job) and probably don't need flight computers for anything other than complex navigation or flying in thick fog/cloud.
- Boeing wanted a rapid and fairly inexpensive development cycle; this is, after all a prototype.
- Computers need to be tested when you put them in aircraft, especially experimental ones where you have to throw out much of your previous learnings.
- In an experimental aircraft, the computer programming would have to change with each iteration of the aircraft; this 'tweaking' could cause bugs to creep in and would certainly add to the time required to create a new version of the craft.
Based on that, adding flight computers would have been expensive, time consuming and wouldn't add to the value of the experiments. It would also have added weight & power consumption to the craft, neither of which is desirable. If it were to go anywhere near production and real use, that is when you start looking at the computers."Flying turd"? Let's see you do better with a slide rule, jackass. That plane is a MIRACLE. It totally revolutionized the force calculus of air power, and it's a master of ragged-edge-of-the-envelope engineering.
Show some respect. The Skunk Works turned in a revolutionary, extraordinarily capable, STUPENDOUSLY RISKY airplane on a shoestring budget. We need more engineers like that.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The F-117's hit-to-loss ratio is unprecedented. There are zero other aircraft in service today (with the exception of the B-2, which is not typically used in tactical air operations) that can survive in modern air defense environments. The fact that ONE has been shot down, considering the number of sorties the 117 has accomplished with zero losses, is a testament to how effective the system has been.
Yes. They got lucky, and bagged a Nighthawk. Odds are, it would happen someday. Nobody (with the exception of media idiots and anti-military types) thought that the aircraft needed to be invulnerable in order to be useful.
Get some perspective.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
It sound like, since it's being retired now, this plane was just a glorified test bed for future camoflage technologies.
For crissake they didn't fly it over 300 mile and hour. I coulda shot it down with a nice scope and a deer rifle.
"The only way to bring peace to the world is to crush out every last spark of individuality and source of friction"
Instead we just crush out those sparks that aren't like ours!
270 million people in a fairly free society don't exactly keep secrets well.
It's easy to look at the matte grey and assume it's a fighter, but a trip to Boeing's press release tells a different story.
The aircraft has an operational ceiling of 20,000 feet, and a cruising speed of 260 knots (mach 0.4). It's weight is 7,400 lbs. that's less than half the weight of an empty F-16 and a sixth that of an F-14. The weight alone doesn't mean it can't be a fighter, but it's no good for any sort of mixed-use, because of its minimal load capacity.
It's also an unlikely choice for surveillance because of its low ceiling. the U-2 was good because anti-aircraft munitions couldn't reach it. The SR-71 was good because they could outrun missiles. This thing, as stealthy as it may be, is a sitting duck as it patrols below its 20,000 foot ceiling, putting along at 280 knots.
No, the point of this aircraft is that it proves new design and fabrication techniques. the prototype was built for $64 million, soup to nuts, and that's a huge deal. Boeing financed the design and production out-of-pocket, and my best guess is that they did it to rpove to the DoD that they could come up with innovative designs, fabricate and test them cheaply and quickly, and maintain a veil of secrecy while they do it.
After losing the F-22/23 battle to Lockheed Martin, Boeing has to rebuild cred with the DoD as more than a missile and satellite maker. My guess is that this is their 'see what we can do' project for the military, since the Skunkworks facilities were't working on much else nowadays.
Kevin Fox
Note also that increased power is only going to help the HARM ordinance find the defender's radar stations even easier.
The line from the movie Patton goes (emphasis mine)
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man".
The Maginot line was a clossal blunder because it was "billions dollars" spent on one system that didn't move. Not because it was "billions of dollars" spent. If the French had spent that money on relatively modern tanks and aircraft the Germans wouldn't have invaded (or at least they wouldn't have been whipped so badly and so quickly ). Instead they prepared for the last war (WW I).
The spiralling costs of "super tech" platforms has much more to do with seriously defective procurement methodologies and politico-economics than in the technologies themselves. In that, yes it is starting to look more and more like the French in the first half of the 20th century.
Okay, for those that haven't paid enough attention (i.e. didn't actually go and read the article,) here is the short of it:
Now, what this means:
This aircraft was made by Boeing so they could make sure that developmental technologies would work. They did this because they had other contracts with the DoD that would benefit from this technology. As the press release says, technology from this aircraft was used in development of the X-45A.
This is very common for defense companies. They know that they need to work on some piece of technology to get their DoD project working right, but they already told the DoD that they had said technology. So what do they do? They develop the technology in secret (seperately from the DoD project,) do it cheaply, and do it with in-house money. This way, the DoD project gets its technology, and they don't have egg on their face from the fact that they didn't actually have this technology developed in the first place.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
It wouldn't be the bird of prey -- #1 it has a business jet engine, #2 it has no real instruments, hell, it doesn't even have real computers! It was flown manually (not fly-by-wire). I doubt this plane was used for anything else than just testing designs...
Actually, I don't think 'putting it on the battle field' is the only thing that counts. I'd like to hope that the struggle for knowledge leads many people to build things for purposes other than destruction.
You don't think there are people at Boeing working on this stuff because they think it's "cool?"
I just want to make it clear that with this level of knowledge of ST stuff, you folks are beginning to scare me. And I thought *I* was bad having (and kinda reading) a copy of the Kinglon-English dictionary.
Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
Yeap... to take out a dictator imposed by the us government, ex cia agent, when he was no useful and arrogant. Also if the only purpose of the operation was to take out Noriega, a good sniper was a better option instead of ordering the death of us troops and Panamanian citizens in the invasion. The number of deaths in this invasion was reduced by the us government and us media to make the use of force like a child game. The real reason for the Noriega crisis was to take out the Panamanian army and to reduce the power of the many banks on this country. (by means of economic sanctions and the blockage of Americans dollars to panama 3 years before the invasion, panama use us dollars for its currency). The us troops are gone complying with the Panama Canal Treaty after 2000 and the canal is in possession of panama. But we got no army to defend it so this is the trick, if the panama canal is in danger, us has the right to invaded here to "protect" its interests and to stay here again until there is no danger, that is a clause on the treaty. Add to this Colombian Guerrilla on our borders, Chinese Government investing on panama, Bush on government, and insert your favorite conspiracy theory and we will be in another international crisis real soon. By the way, i am a Panamanian so excuse my poor English. (Why its so hard for English speaking people to confuse then and than?! wtf)