Slashdot Mirror


Secret New UAS Shows Stealth, Efficiency Advances

Fnord666 writes in with this link about one the development of a new unmanned toy for the U.S. Air Force. "A large, classified unmanned aircraft developed by Northrop Grumman is now flying—and it demonstrates a major advance in combining stealth and aerodynamic efficiency. Defense and intelligence officials say the secret unmanned aerial system (UAS), designed for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, is scheduled to enter production for the U.S. Air Force and could be operational by 2015. Funded through the Air Force's classified budget, the program to build this new UAS, dubbed the RQ-180, was awarded to Northrop Grumman after a competition that included Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The aircraft will conduct the penetrating ISR mission that has been left unaddressed, and under wide debate, since retirement of the Lockheed SR-71 in 1998."

59 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. What about the SR-72 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What I found interesting about the recent SR-72 "teaser" was that it is essentially what people have rumored for the Aurora for years now. Maybe it already exists, and "announcing" it as a hypothetical is step 1 of the unveiling process?

    1. Re:What about the SR-72 by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an American, I'd be fairly pissed off if the military didn't have a secret replacement for the SR-71 already in service (since before 1998).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:What about the SR-72 by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      Don't they have already? Isn't that what all those spy satellites do better and cheaper?

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    3. Re:What about the SR-72 by jittles · · Score: 1

      Don't they have already? Isn't that what all those spy satellites do better and cheaper?

      Spy satellites do not always do it better. Anyone who can build a radar system, do a bit of orbital mechanics, or can navigate to this satellite tracking site can get a pretty good idea of when your recon bird is passing over. You have no idea when or where an SR-71, U2 or other spy plane will be at any given moment.

    4. Re:What about the SR-72 by dywolf · · Score: 1

      that article, just like this one, originated in Aviation Week.
      Aviation Week is the Fox News of the aviation industry.
      (in the sense of, say anything crazy to get eyeballs/ratings)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    5. Re:What about the SR-72 by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      Good point...

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
  2. At what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In these times of austerity it is necessary to disguise your pork barrels.

    Advanced stealth technology makes this enormous barrel of pork look more like a small can of spam.

    1. Re:At what cost? by bradrum · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I read that as "can of sperm". I was surprised someone else canned their sperm, I thought I was the only one that did that.

    2. Re:At what cost? by bradrum · · Score: 1

      On a serious note, these are only "times of austerity" for some programs. Since 9/11 went down, contractors who make hardware for spying and provide services to provide logistics/security to US personnel abroad pretty much get a blank check from the Federal government. Pretty much no elected official wants to be seem as "soft on terrorism".

      The very few that question the trillions we have spent on the war on terror are called conspiracy theorists or are labeled as nut cases.

    3. Re:At what cost? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      Pretty much no elected official wants to be seem as "soft on terrorism".

      True - most seem much happier to appear "soft in the head".

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:At what cost? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Of course it will only work if the US military industrial complex can convince other countries it will work and get them to join the game by countering the supposed threat with public displays of military technology which of course will be used to justify yet further development of more expensive military technology. Face it although diplomacy done properly prevents war, it sucks ass because there just ain't no profit in it. So exactly who is the US planning to start a war with next that justifies this first strike technology (nothing defensive about it at all).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  3. Re:Imperialist madmen will kill us all by Sla$hPot · · Score: 1

    Workers. Uhm??

    Yep...
    All the Chinese workers stand up and fight.

  4. Re:In other words by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Its job is to continue the fine tradition of violating other nuclear powers' airspace on a daily basis.

    If the Muzzies get the bomb it will be a necessity. This could happen - the Pakistani government could just continue its present path and become a sharia state, or Iran could develop a bomb

  5. Pork, pork, pork, pork by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anybody really believe there's a "coverage gap" between satellites and (for example) Global Hawks? No, of course not. The SR-71 was retired because it wasn't needed, not with satellites that can read a license plate from orbit in real time. This is just a corporate handout for Northrup Grumman, we can't have them feeling left out, what with Lockheed Martin getting all the F-35 moniez.

    1. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes. Clouds.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    2. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by PPH · · Score: 4, Informative

      It takes time to reposition a satellite. Even after changing orbits, enemy forces can make reasonable estimates about when there will be coverage gaps and plan operations accordingly.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      In a worst-case scenario it could take a day or two to get imagery back from a satellite. More, if there are clouds. The clever Evil Genius will plan his Fortress of Eviltude to be somewhere where it's always cloudy. Or maybe at one of the poles. Or anywhere on the international date line. I'm told that's an excellent location for a Fortress of Eviltude, as long has half of the fortress is on one side and half the fortress is on the other side. The international date line effectively renders you immune satellite surveillance. Pretty much lets you build your death ray in peace.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by TubeSteak · · Score: 3

      The SR-71 was retired because it wasn't needed, not with satellites that can read a license plate from orbit in real time.

      The SR-71 was killed because of *budget cuts.
      It's a wildly expensive plane to operate and needs a lot of fuel support to go anywhere and come back.

      Satellite coverage isn't the panopticon you seem to think it is.
      Yes they can read your license plate from space, but only if there's a satellite in the right spot, at the right angle.
      Sometimes it's faster to put real eyes in the sky (SR-71 or *U-2) than it is to re-task an out of place satellite.
      And despite the magic of satellite imagery, high resolution film from a plane still wins out.

      *The military is currently looking at mothballing other types of fleets as a fallout of the sequester. Goodbye A-10 Thunderbolt.
      **Yea, we're still using the U-2 spy plane since its introduction in 1957. The Pentagon plans to keep it in service until 2023. They're killing the drone program that was supposed to replace it.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Fortress of Eviltude to be somewhere where it's always cloudy.

      Manchester?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    6. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by AJWM · · Score: 2

      Goodbye A-10 Thunderbolt.

      The Air Force has being trying to get rid of it forever. It's for close air support, not a role the USAF is fond of. The Army would love to take it over but they're not allowed fixed-wing aircraft.

      Stupid turf wars.

      --
      -- Alastair
    7. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      I'll see your video and raise you Red Dwarf Enhancement...
      Because honestly, we could just enhance our satellite imagery ;)

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    8. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Syracuse. And it's called the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6OKLgLZHFk

    9. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by SJ · · Score: 1

      Interesting that the Army is not permitted fixed wing aircraft or heavy boats. The Airforce isn't permitted heavy armour/troops...

      and yet the Navy is allowed both.

      How the heck did that get worked out?

    10. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      It takes time to reposition a satellite. Even after changing orbits, enemy forces can make reasonable estimates about when there will be coverage gaps and plan operations accordingly.

      Not only can they, they already have. I've read that the Soviets gave us a false picture of the accuracy of their ballistic missiles by timing the tests based on our satellite orbits. After the missile had been launched and hit the target range, but before our satellites passed over again, they'd move the target closer to the impact point.

      And, of course, you can only reposition a satellite so many times before it runs out of fuel, and there are limits to the degree of repositioning. With aircraft, you can have it over a particular target within hours of deciding to do so.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    11. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      After the missile had been launched and hit the target range, but before our satellites passed over again, they'd move the target closer to the impact point.

      In Soviet Russia, target hits you!

      (Sorry, couldn't resist)

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    12. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by dywolf · · Score: 1

      not to mention it means giving up on whateer the sat was watching previously, and it can only be done a few times.
      regardless of hollywood movies, retasking a sat is neither easy, nor commonly done.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    13. Re:Pork, pork, pork, pork by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no. Your analysis is faulty. And you don't know history.

      The only thing Global Hawk brings to the table is loiter time. Its slow, decidely unstealthy. It can fill gaps in the sat coverage, much like the U2 (also still in service). But it's rather easy to intercept, east to detect, easy to see coming.

      The SR71 wasnt canceled because it wasnt needed. it was canceled because it was expensive as shit to operate.
      What the SR brought to the table was speed, the ability to be anywhere in the world within 2 hours, unreachable, uninterceptable. that is a unique capability that (officially) has not yet been replaced.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  6. Re:So do my farts by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    ...and you don't see them getting any military contracts.

    I'm afraid your problem is the treaty against chemical and biological warfare.

  7. Eternal war... by spacefight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... for eternal peace. Those funds --- ah forget it. Nothing going to change anytime soon.

  8. Re:Initial Planning? by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unmanned Aerial System Strategy (for) Home Owners (on) Lake Erie?

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  9. toasters by kaoshin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This one bears resemblance to a cylon raider. Perhaps their plan is a much more sinister one?

    1. Re:toasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is the deal with flying wings anyway? It seems like everything these days is a flying wing or close to a flying wing.

      Is it more efficient or what is the advantage. As an R/C enthusiast I have flown them and they're not that fun because they really aren't very stable or maneuverable.

    2. Re:toasters by PapayaSF · · Score: 2

      What is the deal with flying wings anyway? It seems like everything these days is a flying wing or close to a flying wing.

      Is it more efficient or what is the advantage. As an R/C enthusiast I have flown them and they're not that fun because they really aren't very stable or maneuverable.

      Flying wings are good because the entire structure provides lift, and the drag of a fuselage and vertical control surfaces is eliminated. Their shape also makes them more stealthy, even without the use of radar-absorbing materials. The control issue was always the limiting factor and was a major reason why the YB-35/YB-49 didn't succeed. Current flying wings would be unflyable without advanced computer "fly by wire" controls (which your R/C planes don't have). In other words, the pilot's controls aren't directly controlling the aircraft's control surfaces: they are telling the computer what he wants the plane to do, and the computer then moves the split ailerons to make that happen.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    3. Re:toasters by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      I like drones and frankly would like to see them more in use within US borders. Drones can be used for very high quality crime prevention and control. We are reaching the point at which many criminals will be forced into a much more law abiding life style. Low level criminals may be slow to catch on but once it becomes clear that drones can take their freedom away they may be forced into a more normal way of life. Drive by shootings may be one of the first crimes to vanish as they are so easy to detect and long prison sentences would surely follow.

  10. What austerity? by arcite · · Score: 1

    I don't know what country you're in, but the US is not doing austerity.

  11. Re: Imperialist madmen will kill us all by haseanlave · · Score: 1

    wsss

  12. Op, op, op, op by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    Northrop Grumman style!

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  13. Oh, Really? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Encrypted communications channels? Redundant navigation systems? Ability to return home amid heavy signal jamming?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  14. You know what this is... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. Re:The difference being by Entropius · · Score: 1

    Why are "good STEM jobs" worthwhile if they produce nothing of value? How is this any better than giving people specialized training in engineering and mathematics and then paying them to pick their noses?

  16. UAS? by odoketa · · Score: 2

    Is there a reason we're not calling this a drone? The use of 'UAS' makes me feel like I'm reading propaganda.

    1. Re:UAS? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      The widespread use of the term "drone" is actually fairly new and rather media led, as UAVs, UASs, UCAVs etc have been around for well over two decades and have been referred to in those terms as well. If anything, its the medias use of the term "drone" that is propaganda, as they have managed to equate it with negative usage pretty much universally.

    2. Re:UAS? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      To keep it neutral I, for one, prefer the term Demoncraft.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:UAS? by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      The widespread use of the term "drone" is actually fairly new and rather media led, as UAVs, UASs, UCAVs etc have been around for well over two decades.

      True. In fact, by the traditional definition of the term, this aircraft isn't a "drone," a term that used to be reserved for "target drones" and other relatively unsophisticated aircraft. But "drone" is easy to say and remember, compared to UAV etc. For the media, that's close enough. It's like calling a DSL box a "modem" even though it doesn't actually modulate and demodulate.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  17. Diversity of sensors by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Neither a satellite not a Global Hawk could collect air samples downwind from Yongbyon. The Global Hawk would get shot down.

  18. Good intelligence serves peace by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Fear thrives on ignorance. Imagine where we'd be without spy satellites.

    1. Re:Good intelligence serves peace by cusco · · Score: 1

      Living in colonies on the moon.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  19. Also emotional SAC hostility by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    The histories of the SR-71 program show an irrational, tribalist rejection of anything that didn't drop bombs or refuel bombers. It's more than a little disturbing to read about.

    Maybe the CIA should have taken it over. It was their program in the first place (look up "Oxcart").

  20. Re:Imperialist madmen will kill us all by slick7 · · Score: 1

    The machines will rise and stop you all.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  21. Re:Space is no longer a war free zone thanks to Ch by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    We already know the coordinates of the Three Gorges Dam.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  22. It Looks Really Cool, But by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    How many cup holders does it have? And why were the windows painted over?

  23. Re:In other words by cusco · · Score: 1

    Venezuela's pretty much an impossible target already. Large, well-armed, well-trained militias scattered throughout a country full of terrain a Western military would absolutely hate, a population that supports its government almost as much as it opposes foreign oppressors, and the immediate halt of oil from one of the US's biggest suppliers. Plus an entire continent that would erupt if the US dared. The US hasn't even been able to put Cuba back under its thumb in over half a century, Venezuela's so far out of the question as to be laughable.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  24. Re:Space is no longer a war free zone thanks to Ch by Cochonou · · Score: 1

    The US has conducted a little experiment in 1962 called "starfish", in which they blew up a nuclear missile in space. It created temporary artificial radiation belts which knocked down a number of satellites.
    The bottom line is that space has been a war zone long before China did their ASAT missile experiment.

  25. Re:Imperialist madmen will kill us all by davester666 · · Score: 1

    Really. Everybody stand up. Oh, you are...sorry.

    Anyway, this doesn't sound like a very secret project if defense and intelligence officials are being quoted about it...

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  26. more significant UAV & UAS by Max_W · · Score: 1

    https://www.sensefly.com/
    ultralight drone (0.7 kg) for aerial orthorectfied imagery. Ten square kilometers of imagery per 45 minutes flight.

  27. Paint by coofercat · · Score: 1

    Was the 'major advance' the fact they managed to paint it white? I mean, who ever thought that a huge, pointy black aircraft was 'stealthy'?

  28. Re:classified? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    Of course, there is also the perspective that the presence of the program is advertised, but not its capabilities. Most of TFA is speculation based on what Northrop Grumman could do, based on its various acquisitions and industry strengths.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  29. Are you really niave enough? by Benders · · Score: 1

    Do you really believe the US has been without a high-altitude, high-speed reconnaissance aircraft since the SR-71 was moth-balled? You believe that the government that is listening to all your phone calls, and reading all your email has been without this kind of aerial surveillance capability? You also probably believe that if you speak out openly in a negative regard about this administration, or our Glorious Leader himself, that the IRS will not target you for auditing as well. The year 1984 may have come and gone. But it's realities are here and now

  30. Re:classified? by volmtech · · Score: 1

    Here in North Florida Grumman has increased the plane cleaning build size by 400%. You could park an E2 in it before,what are they planning to do in that new building with those employees they are hiring.