Message posted by greatguess on September 01, 2011 at 18:23:07 PST:
i posted this jan 16 2011 and i think i will stick by it. Please feel free to attack - that will help define the concept. B3U Concept Demonstrator Theory Overall Program Concept Build a B3U (B3 Unmanned) demonstrator vehicle of B2A class at absolute minimum cost and as quick as possible; this would be the concept demonstrator for a B3 with similar (or better) capabilities to a B2A. My Proposed Solution (which I believe is underway) 1. Quietly remove one of the B2A Spirits from operational status and modify it into a B2U (B2 Unmanned) demonstrator (two instead of one would be a smarter) Advantages of Proposed Solution over “start from scratch” development 1. Rapid demonstration of heavy bomber UAV capability; complete development and creation of a “start from scratch” prototype would be extremely expensive and take a very long time. It Appears That…. 1. FACT A hangar complex has been designed and built at DLR that would support an almost B2A sized vehicle (actually two) 2. There are reports of at least one, perhaps two, B2 class vehicles departing from Plant 42 in Palmdale California at night in the last few months 3. There are reports of engine run sounds heard in the vicinity of DLR beginning 6 Jan 2010
-
Based on my recent observations from the Antelope valley in southern calif i propose the following idea for discussion..........
Vehicle should be unmanned with B2A capabilities at a minimum.
Vehicle needs to be tested covertly.
Vehicle will need to do all B2A tasks as a UAV without normal onboard human support; especially important are the following:
Takeoff/Landing
Aerial Refueling
Onboard systems monitoring
Autonomous flight in case of loss of communication links
Autonomous recovery to landing if necessary
Communications with Air Traffic Control as required (via radio relay)
Vehicle will perform to B2A specifications or better
Vehicle will have a ceiling of no less than 65K feet
2. The existing B2A modifications would include at a minimum:
a. Removal of all human support systems at the end of the demo (you need to man the aircraft when it is in public airspace per FAA rules – for now. For example, the ferry from Plant 42 to DLR would be a piloted flight while test flights out of DLR could/would be unmanned)
i. Cockpit displays and controls used by human operators
ii. Ejection System
iii. Reduction of cabin environmental systems needed by humans to what is needed for 65K feet operation of the vehicle
b. Addition of automated capabilities would include at a minimum:
i. Automated Aerial Refueling capability
1. This capability has been demonstrated on other test aircraft
ii. Autonomous flight control system
1. Keep in mind that Northrop now owns Teledyne Ryan which designed and built Global Hawk)
iii. Automated Take Off and Landing capability
iv. UHF/VHF/SAT comm as required for standard UAV operations
v. Ability to downlink critical Warning and Caution Alerts (WACA’s) to ground monitors for any action required
2. The B2A is a proven weapon system that is still being optimized and improved.
3. Using as much of the existing B2A system as possible provides reduction in costs and risks in at least the following areas
a. Design (only required for UAV capabilities and minor B2A modifications)
b. Manufacturing (using an existing asset as the core vehicle)
c. Testing (basic B2A system testing is complete – only UAV aspects and modifications would need to be tested)
d. Logistics (Maintenance and spare parts) – it’s a B2A for the most part and the spares and tech orders already exist in the inventory
e. Security – If you keep vehicle appearance as much like a B2A as possible it will go un-noticed during testing for the most part. (“Oh, look. A B2…)
a. FACT Based on my analysis the doors of the new hangar are 172’ wide
i. I list this as a FACT because of the incredible detail available from SAT photos during construction (from DLR) and June of 2009 (from DLR).
b. FACT The B2A has a 172’ wingspan so using an existing ship would require the wings of a B2A to be “clipped” to allow it (them) to fit the vehicle through the doors of the hangar
i. Any modification to an existing B2A must be minimized to use as much of the core aircraft as possible and reduce costs and risk
ii. A quick (very crude) analysis on my part would indicate you could reduce the wingspan of the B2A wingspan with a wingtip “clip” fairly simply by 3’ on each side without causing a redesign of the ailerons near the wingtips
1. My guess is that since these are concept demonstrators that they were willing to keep the hangar as small as possible since any follow on full scale development aircraft would likely have a smaller wingspan. For that reason they were willing to accept a 3’ wingtip hangar clearance for the demonstrator(s).
c. FACT The new hangar has two engine run pads (one to the North of the hangar and one to the South)
i. The engine run pad to the South of the hangar seems to be an “afterthought” based on image data available at this point.
a. First occurrence was mid-August 2009 around 0100 hrs PDT
b. Second (better documented) was 4 Jan 2010 at 0612hrs PST
a. The B2A is LOUD when doing engine runs and VERY LOUD on takeoff run; it has a very distinctive sound compared to other large aircraft like C5’s, C17’s, or B1’s
In Reply to: Re: New hangar at south end posted by delarochej on September 01, 2011 at 17:52:08 PST:
Replies: