Slashdot Mirror


US Air Force Confirms New Stealth Aircraft

DesScorp writes "Aviation Week reports that the USAF has confirmed the existence of a new, formerly secret stealth aircraft, designated RQ-170 Sentinel, developed at Lockheed's legendary Skunk Works. Rumors of a secret new jet have been flying since 2007, with longtime aviation journalist Bill Sweetman dubbing the possible aircraft 'The Beast of Kandahar' because of the urban legend-like reports from Afghanistan. The aircraft is a UAV, a pilot-less drone that appears to have some kind of reconnaissance-only mission for the time being. It's a tailless flying wing that resembles a fighter-sized B-2 bomber."

34 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. top secret by sentientbeing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Theyre just telling us its a secret new invisible jet because they dont want to tell us what theyre really working on

    --

    ------
    beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    1. Re:top secret by mrsquid0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that this aircraft has been publicly acknowledged suggests that they have something far more advanced that they are not telling us about at the Skunk Works.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:top secret by Kagura · · Score: 3, Informative

      In any case, here's a photo of the RQ-170 Sentinel.

      Any ideas on why they need such a secret and stealthy UAV in Afghanistan for? Obviously they weren't too worried about it if this Bill Sweetman guy was able to see it at the Kandahar International Airport.

    3. Re:top secret by mrsquid0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Afghanistan is a testing ground for the UAV. It is a fairly safe testing ground because the Afghanis do not have anything that has a realistic chance at shooting it down. The fact that it was at an international aeroport suggests that the US does not consider it to be one of their secret planes anymore. It will be interesting to see (five or ten years from now) what the real cutting edge of military aviation is in 2009.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    4. Re:top secret by Kagura · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's another photo that is much higher quality.

    5. Re:top secret by pckl300 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Any ideas on why they need such a secret and stealthy UAV in Afghanistan for?

      I'm pretty sure we're looking for someone in Afghanistan. I think his name is Waldo.

      --
      In the beginning, there was null.
    6. Re:top secret by Goffee71 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Afghanistan is near to Iran, Pakistan and China, far more useful testing grounds.

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    7. Re:top secret by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Disclosure: I am formerly an F-117 avionics technician, of what used to be the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing at Tonopah Test Range, NV (the original home of the F-117 Nighthawk). That said, I've been a civilian for nearly 20 years, but...

      The USAF 'fessed up to the existence of the F-117 in 1988 (and included a fuzzy-at-best photograph). That was what they were "really" working on at the time. Better stuff (cf. the B-2) came out later, and from other projects. Before 1988, we were considered to be working on an A-7 avionics upgrade program - my old orders still reflect that (while my old training records had a ton of phrases reading "see classified master"). After 1988, the A-7s were quietly sent back to the Arizona boneyard they came out of, and we were officially working on the Stealth Fighter from that point on. There was no "really working on" bit to it - that's what we were doing.

      Now it may or may not be true that they are/were/will-be working on something else. Those may come out in due time, or they may be quietly buried or shelved if they don't work out. Fact is, there may well be more than one project in motion, but the confirmation or denial of those projects simply will not happen unless/until the USAF says something about 'em individually and in particular. Even during my 'tenure', we only knew about our baby - we didn't talk to others about our doings, and they didn't talk to us about theirs.

      Sorry, but that's just the way it is *shrug*. It's weird, it's secretive, and you just got along in spite of it. If I were a betting man, I'd say that the odds were excellent of other projects going on... but you and I won't know about them until the gov't is good and ready to say something about 'em.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:top secret by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In particularly I'd really like to know what replaced the SR-71. A fairly advanced UAV could probably do it now.

      It more than likely has already existed for some time. While any comment on the technology implemented is speculation, it is more than likely that treaty negotiations between the US and USSR to stop manned surveillance flights over each others territory _dictates_ that any current technology implemented for that mission is a UAV. It is unlikely that the US military would allow a gap in mission capability.

      It is more than likely that the cost over-runs of the B1 bomber program were actually the development costs of the SR-91 and that any UAV technology we see implemented now is actually a descendant of the "SR-91" program on a different airframe.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  2. Re:Is it really that necessary? by afabbro · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1, if not 2 generations ahead of its allies. Besides, its enemies still have WWII-level technologies.

    Does it really need to spend so much billions on finding -yet- more advanced stealth technology?

    Are you volunteering to fly missions?

    Yes, the military complex creates jobs, but there are jobs in OTHER SECTORS as well, which imho are more beneficial to the overall well being of human civilization.

    There is nothing as beneficial to mankind as Pax Americana.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  3. Heh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet it swoops overhead and downloads child porn to the hard drives of terrorists.
    They have no idea what they're in for.

  4. Old news to me by Celeste+R · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This craft is also capable of bombing missions, according to the Military Channel's own documentaries on experimental craft. It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts.
    The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings, and can even do so in the dark. (a milestone feat in itself, due many factors)
    It's also capable of 24+ hour flight, which is awesome for scouting missions waiting for a mobile target, and is capable of mid-air refueling. (this is a living pilot no-no, and potentially keeps the craft up as long as it needs to be).

    Eventually, this will be flying more than our own pilots will be, due to the fact that pilots cannot be mass-produced. Eventually, we WILL be putting arms on them, even if only because there might not be a good enough alternative.

    Also, rumors about similar tanks are in the works... that are so overengineered that they tried to break it and couldn't (experimental model).

    --
    There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
  5. Dinochrome Brigade by rshol · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Also, rumors about similar tanks are in the works... that are so overengineered that they tried to break it and couldn't (experimental model)." I for one welcome the arrival of the Bolos.

  6. Re:Is it really that necessary? by rhsanborn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    American soldiers haven't had to fear death from the skies for 50 years because of America's complete superiority in the air. Similarly, America's ability to maintain that superiority into the future depends on continued funding and development of new technologies. It's foolish to stop development because we're good enough now. Halting the development of these technologies creates an environment in which no one has worked on advanced fighter aircraft for 30 years because "we were good enough back then" and we can't get back up to speed.

    The other problem is deciding when the time is that we need to start development back up again? Is it when we think possible enemies catch up? Is it when we are devastated by previously unknown technology from somewhere?

    I know we are fighting different kinds of wars now (counter-insurgency, gorilla warfare, etc), but I think it's unreasonable to pretend that we'll never need to worry about fighting large scale wars because we aren't fighting them now. The truth is, the threat of wars from foreign lands is not non-existent, and given that, the US military machine should work to be as prepared as possible for that eventuality.

  7. Re:Is it really that necessary? by maeka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No armor has ever saved as many lives as good, fresh, intel on enemy positions and movements.

  8. Re:Is it really that necessary? by lukas84 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd like to see some pictures of gorilla warfare. Are these mechanized or trained Gorillas?

  9. Re:Is it really that necessary? by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I follow defense technology closely, and while I'm a critic of many new defense programs... I think the F-35 is becoming an overpriced boondoggle, for instance... I'm a firm believer that the US has to maintain a level of technology superior to its adversaries. You never want to go into an even fight. You want to be better in every way to the guy opposing you on the battlefield. That requires constant research. If you sit still, others pass you up.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  10. Makes sense. by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    Makes sense. A stealthed recon aircraft should be small. Recon is mostly flying preprogrammed flight paths, so the pilot doesn't make many decisions. Hence a moderate-sized UAV.

    The Air Force guys hate it, but UAVs are getting the job done. The Army is going for more automation; they use autoland on their Predators, and have far fewer crashes than the USAF stick jocks who land the things manually.

  11. Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban?? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One comment on tfa raised an obvious question: Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)? One clue may be that the closest international border to Kandahar is Pakistan's, and Pakistan certainly does have radar. The next question, about why this story was leaked complete with a picture, might have a related answer: The message is "Fuck you, Pakistan; we'll talk as though we're your friends, but we own your airspace and can see every hair on your bare asses, so don't try anything."

    1. Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban?? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One comment on tfa raised an obvious question: Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)?

      For the same reason we use Aegis destroyers against pirates off of Somalia - we use what we have. We don't keep any 18th century sloops around in case we need to go against fishing boats, nor any biplane drones for use in Afghanistan.
       

      The next question, about why this story was leaked

      This isn't a leak - it's an official USAF confirmation.

  12. Photo by rlp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here's a picture of five of them in action.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  13. Possible Reasons Why by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Any ideas on why they need such a secret and stealthy UAV in Afghanistan for? Obviously they weren't too worried about it if this Bill Sweetman guy was able to see it at the Kandahar International Airport.

    One, Sweetman didn't discover it in the field. He was likely first alerted to it when someone sent him the grainy photos of the bird in flight. He's probably the most prominent miltary aviation journalist in the world, so people come to him when they think they've found something secret.

    As to why it's in Afghanistan, that was a puzzle to me to at first, but some very good (and intriguing) theories have come up about it. For one, some note that not everyone in the Pakistani military is reliable in the Afghan war; there's a good chance some members are feeding intel to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's been suggested that since we've become very dependent on sending Predators and Reapers to hunt the Taliban in the desert, perhaps we don't completely trust Pakistani radar operators anymore. Perhaps we think they're sending what they know to the very people we're hunting.

    Another, even more intriguing possibility, is that China is right next door. And considering the luck we've had with conventional intel aircraft monitoring China, perhaps this is our way of keeping an eye on the growing Dragon. However, if we're actually penetrating Chinese airspace, then we're playing a very dangerous, Gary Powers-like game.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Possible Reasons Why by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are better pictures out there, including one of it on the ground.

      At least people think its the RQ-170, if its not, there are two strange planes out there.

      http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/12/kandahars-loch-ness-mystery-pl.html

  14. Re:Is it really that necessary? by glueball · · Score: 5, Informative

    Who had an Air Force?

    Korea=yes, for the duration
    Viet Nam= yes, for the duration
    Cold War = yes, the USSR and USA often flew matching flights.
    Iraq I = yes (for about 20 minutes)
    Al Qaeda = yes (4 planes for about 90 minutes)
    Iraq II = yes (for about 3 minutes)

    For the Future:
    Iran=yes (F-14s, thank you Jimmy Carter), MiG 29

  15. Re:Is it really that necessary? by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The pursuit of scientific endeavors is the only future for mankind. Universal healthcare and public transit are good economic investments in infrastructure, but they contribute very little to the betterment of humanity in the manner that scientific advancement through military research has.

    It's also worth pointing out that many of the medical advancements we would take for granted today came from military research/endeavours... :) Not all of the money being poured into the military is being spent on building bigger and better guns.

  16. Re:Is it really that necessary? by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >American soldiers haven't had to fear death from the skies for 50 years because of America's complete superiority in the air

    Except from "blue on blue" aka "friendly fire".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire

    --
  17. Re:Is it really that necessary? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Funny

    Depends if you mean European Gorillas or the much larger African Gorillas. Of the course the African ones are non-migratory.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  18. BWB by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, so we have loads of experience with Blended wing bodies in the military. How about applying that tech back to the BWB and getting it built. It can be used for Tanker, Cargo, and even bombers for the military. Likewise, it can be used for freight airlines. Then over time, we will see the regular airlines pick this up, put cargo on the outer edges and avoid the issues with having a regular airline pick it up. Why? Because it will use 30-50% less fuel.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  19. Re:Is it really that necessary? by furball · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some people serve their country, not their morality. They step up to service because their country needs their service, not because their morality agreed with the current course of action. It's a fairly simple statement of "I'm willing to set aside my beliefs to do what my country believes is the better course of action for it." These people form the basis of the career military service. They don't volunteer for a war. They volunteer for whatever their country requires of them. They'll be there before the war starts and they'll be there after it's done. Only fools volunteers for a war, but it is a patriot who signs up for service.

    Morality is simply a justification for war. It allows those who believe in morality to support war without their conscience gnawing at them. It lets them ignore the wounded, the dead, and the human suffering that will follow. It does not avoid any of that.

  20. Re:Is it really that necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    He's carrying a gun, mortar, and/or RPG. And he's in a group of several other guys like him. And he's moving toward a military checkpoint or installation. And he keeps ducking behind cover, thinking it will hide him.

  21. The US is not so much worried about Pakistan by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The US is more worried about who might control Pakistan tomorrow. The country is in civil war and the government troops are not nearly as in control as they like to claim. And Pakistan got nukes. If its army bases can be attacked, then why not its nuclear facilities? If that happens, well the shit has hit the fan. The US would have no choice to intervene and do it very quickly before India does, nuclear style. And if the US intervenes it would not have time to ask the remaining pakistan goverment for fly-over permission and such.

    The current conflict is a lot more dangerous then a lot of people in the west presume. They see a couple of towelheads shooting an AK-47 in the air or guarding someone with an RPG (really, what are you going to do Einstein, shoot your prisoner with an explosive grenade from 2 meters away?) and think "what danger could they be". Not much. Except in very large numbers to a country where the ordinary soldier is not all that motivated in the first place. And that is what Pakistan faces and the price is a nuclear arsenal that very few people in the world would tolerate even the risk of the Taliban getting their hands on it.

    This ain't a message against the goverment of Pakistan, it is preperation for what goverment there might be in control tomorrow.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  22. Re:Sonic booms out west... by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Simple rule for supersonic aircraft maximum speeds is to think of a right triangle, one point at the nose, one at the wingtip and the right angle on the center line near the back (in line with the nose and the wingtip).

    The aircrafts maximum speed (in Mach) is the ratio of fuselage length to wing length (minus a little bit).

    The wing tip has to be behind the shock wave generated by the nose.

    This plane is not even fast subsonic by the looks of things.

    This doesn't work for the space shuttle as it's very nose high when at maximum speed but holds for anything up to an X-15 or SR-71.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  23. Re:Is it really that necessary? by Glonoinha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    About Iran's birds :

    F-14s take a ton of maintenance and spare parts to keep them flying. I think it's somewhere on the order of 50 man hours in maintenance for every hour in the air, and those 50 man hours are generally fixing or replacing hardware. Given that Iran hasn't got a constant feed of spare parts to keep the Tomcat's in the air, I am going to bet they scavenged some planes to keep others flying, recursively, until none were still air-worthy.

    The MiG 29s? They can probably buy spare parts for those, no problems.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  24. Re:Is it really that necessary? by Kagura · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whereas UAV pilots cower in bunkers on another continent - so very brave.

    Thank you. Personally, I only go to battle wearing a bright red jacket and blue pants carrying a balloon above me for higher visibility. It's the only honorable thing to do.