HOME | DD
HamzaLippisch β Unmanned Unafraid
Published: 2013-07-24 09:49:59 +0000 UTC; Views: 8657; Favourites: 157; Downloads: 148
Redirect to original
Description
The F24U is a dronized improved version of the previous F24 Manta, it features additional canards to enhance controlability in addition to frontal camera, sensors and so on.I changed the paint scheme on this one a little bit and added some more details to it, well there's a detail few will notice i'll give you a clue and say that it is most visible on upper wing, the cockpit conversion was inspired from Bazze's unmanned JAS.
I tried new stuff on the postprocessing, mainly the final HDR toning that gives to the image a realistic look.
Hope you like it!
Related content
Comments: 26
Question:
If this is designed to be a close air support fighter, could there be additional optics on the underside of the nose? I think that might make better use of the drone version, making it possible to recon ground targets without actually tipping the nose. Another option would be to put them closer to the tip where they could see both ahead and towards the ground.
π: 0 β©: 1
You sir have a point, in fact the preliminary goal of putting the optics on the top was purely aesthetic. but in fact with today's technology the aircraft could recon the targets from a sufficient distance then memorize its position by radar or so.
But definitely the additional optics option is in fact needed here.
Thanks for the interest.
π: 0 β©: 0
I assume thats a good thing
π: 0 β©: 1
When I see this, I think of it as a forward swept wing version of the Sabre UCAV from the Green Lantern movie. Great job. You know the days of the manned fighter jet are ending soon when in a couple of years, the United States Air Force starts turning older model F-16 Fighting Falcons into drones.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, i think there's a planned unmanned version of the F-35 too.
π: 0 β©: 1
I heard that to, but I think Lockheed has spent too much time and money in making the different manned versions of the F-35 they do not have the time and the money to make an unmanned version.
π: 0 β©: 0
As far as stealth goes, one explanation you could use is that the frequency absorbtion materials utilized in the stealth system are capable of negating a high percentage of active sensor radiation. Thermoptic stealth could be also be part of the overall stealth package. Further increasing her stealth capabilities in the battle space.
These types of systems would allow you to integrate the canted wing and canard design. The F22 Raptor incorporates a stealth system and her design is pretty traditional in many ways.
Cool design =^^=
π: 0 β©: 2
Alternatively, sacrificing the aerodynamic to prevent the edge of the wings to deflect the radar wave. This is more effective than using a radar absorbing/penetrating materials, but the trade off is to use with beefy engine to compensate the loss of flight performance.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thanks for your intresting comment i agree those systems can definitely improve stealth, im wondering if there's a computational way to find out how well is a shape stealthy.
π: 0 β©: 1
There are but I don't know what they would be. The sharp angles are an older system that is giving way to rounded geometry in the next generation of stealth weapon systems.Β
With the advancements in optic camouflage and radiation absorption & dispersion, shape may not even be an issue in future stealth systems. It'll be interesting to see what develops in the next gen drones =^^=
π: 0 β©: 1
I did an RCS evaluation of this aircraft at 0 and 45 degree elevation and the aircraft seems to have an rcs of 0.33 which is in the range of Gripen and Su-47.
Would this aircraft satisfy the USAF need for a generation 4.5 non stealthy aircraft.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not sure to be honest. I was looking for RCS ratings and couldn't find a lot of info about it. If assume its low. I'll keep looking. Where did you find data on standard RCS reqs for aircraft?
π: 0 β©: 1
I actually didn't look myself but was told by someone experienced, i'll make sure to ask him for the source.
π: 0 β©: 1
Right on. Please do, I'd love to understand the rating =^^=
π: 0 β©: 1
He finally did reply and the sources are : F-16.netΒ discussion board,Β Dr. Raymer's aircraft design book and Wikipedia. he has sent me a list of some RCS values (check your notes)
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh cool! Thx for the data. I'm always interested in finding new sources of information regarding military weapon systems =^^=
π: 0 β©: 1
That's a lovely design, but if that happens in real military research, it won't even have pass an initial selection at all...... (both front-flapped wings and canards are belongs to the enemy, since it's not stealthy).
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks, i must assume the stealth department is not perfect but saying its not stealthy at all should be reconsidered.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, I agree with the second part. Someone just don't want to give credit to the "uncommon" aircraft design, which is still having a mindset of stealth concern.
π: 0 β©: 0
Cool lighting on the aircraft 
π: 0 β©: 1